Transcript Presentation Title

Windows OS support
of UPnP
Peter K. Jarvis
UPnP Group Program
Manager
Microsoft Corporation
Agenda

Why UPnP?

Why are we here?

What has Microsoft done?

UPnP Forum

What are we trying to do?

How are we going to do it?

Where do we go now?
Why UPnP?

Are Networked devices more than a vision?

Yes



Microsoft want to make devices easier-to-use


UPnP is the forum that works towards making
complex devices easier to configure
Better ease of use and features increases sales


Devices can be more capable when networked
New devices for new connected scenarios
For everyone
We want to make this happen
Why are we here?

Facilitate industry leaders to pave a new way

Help advance key networking technologies



Enable new scenarios for IP based devices



Promote IP technology vision, including IPv6
Provide solutions for NAT/Firewall traversal
Make devices incredibly easy to use/configure
Promote technology with early implementations
Empower people through great software…
What has Microsoft done?

Initiated the creation of the UPnP Forum




Microsoft




We worked with many of you to accomplish this
A place to create standardized device descriptions
Similar in definition to other CE industry forums
Contributed V1 Architecture specification
Architecture document described the protocols
Positive feedback from forum on Windows support
Steadfast commitment to success of program


Early implementation for Windows ME, CE and XP
Support for your scenarios in the operating system
UPnP Forum

Provides for cross vendor inter-operability

Develop device standards

Enables an industry

Achieves world-wide brand recognition

Makes sure it works


Provide a program for the test qualification and
interoperability of UPnP devices
Operates efficiently



Open membership (500+ member companies)
Simple IPR terms
Simple process for participation.
What are we trying to do?


Focus is to align UPnP V2 with Web Services
UPnP V1 Support


UPnP V2 Support




We will support v2 in Longhorn
We will support v2 security in Longhorn
Bridging


We will support v1 in Longhorn
Evaluate bridging mechanism between V1 and V2
Encourage device and UCP manufacturers to support v1
and v2 devices and associated security mechanisms.
We need people to be involved in the forum process.
How are we going to do it?

Work within the forum to build a new v2.0.

Change the forum process



Encourage participation.
Push is to leverage web services

Missing technology submitted to standards org

Moving quickly to meet Longhorn schedule
Focus is on:

Creating a production standard

Provide support in Longhorn

Help create a pervasive story around UPnP
Where do we go now?

Need to move quickly on v2.0 to make Longhorn




Professional Developers Conference.



Build a specification for devices within forum.
Participation is key
We need to solve big problems

V1/V2 Bridging

Security
Aim is to showcase solution
Conference Room projector is a start…
We are committed

Build it, ship it, sell it, make money
Next Steps

New process defined in Member Agreement


Steering Committee



Creates open process for architecture definition
Is forming a new Architecture Committee
First AC meeting coming in November
These concepts will be input to the AC; they are
not the output of AC deliberations

To be fleshed out prior to AC meeting
Overview
Thoughts not commitments

Addressing - IETF Zeroconf

Discovery – SOAP

Description – SOAP, WSDL 1.2

Control – SOAP

Eventing – SOAP

Security – SOAP

Presentation – HTTP, XHTML
Addressing

IETF Zeroconf


Very similar to existing Auto IP with
some refinements



http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietfzeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-07.txt
Allocate link local address immediately
rather than waiting for DHCP timeout
Continue using both addresses if DHCP
address obtained later
Few if any changes; just reference
Discovery

Many options to consider

SSDP with scalability extensions


Hard to standardize in IETF
SOAP-based protocol

SOAP expression of SLPv2 semantics
Description

Align with WS-I Basic Profile (WSDL
doc/literal format)



http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/200210/BasicProfile-1.0-WGD.htm
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12
Standard SOAP service rather than
simple HTTP GET



Similar to UPnP DeviceStealth service
Easier to secure
Provide description download, type query
Control

Profile of SOAP 1.2



http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12
Limited adjuncts
Could use SOAP over TCP rather than
HTTP

No need for HTTP except for Presentation?
Eventing

Web Services based Eventing




Standard SOAP service for subscription,
renewal, cancellation, notification
Not UPnP-specific; for general web
services applications
Extensible
Currently internal to Microsoft

Available for external review shortly
Security

WS-Security




SOAP-based messages and services
Available on MSDN now at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.a
sp?url=/library/enus/dnglobspec/html/wssecurspecindex.asp
Several parts including WS-Trust and WSSecureConversation
Currently comparing to UPnP Security
Services WC output to ensure all
requirements met
Presentation

Few changes from UPnP v1

HTTP

XHTML-Basic by default?



Requested by several Forum members
Simpler, for lightweight control points
HTML 4 and other extensions could still
be used if browser capable of it
For the interconnected lifestyle