Windows OS support of UPnP

1. Windows OS support of UPnP Peter K. Jarvis UPnP Group Program Manager Microsoft Corporation

2. 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?

3. Why UPnP? • Are Networked devices more than a vision? • Yes • Devices can be more capable when networked • New devices for new connected scenarios • 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 • For everyone • We want to make this happen

4. Why are we here? • Facilitate industry leaders to pave a new way • Help advance key networking technologies • Promote IP technology vision, including IPv6 • Provide solutions for NAT/Firewall traversal • Enable new scenarios for IP based devices • Make devices incredibly easy to use/configure • Promote technology with early implementations • Empower people through great software…

5. What has Microsoft done? • Initiated the creation of the UPnP Forum • We worked with many of you to accomplish this • A place to create standardized device descriptions • Similar in definition to other CE industry forums • Microsoft • 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

6. 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.

7. What are we trying to do? • Focus is to align UPnP V2 with Web Services • UPnP V1 Support • We will support v1 in Longhorn • UPnP V2 Support • We will support v2 in Longhorn • We will support v2 security in Longhorn • Bridging • 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.

8. 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

9. Where do we go now? • Need to move quickly on v2.0 to make Longhorn • Build a specification for devices within forum. • Participation is key • We need to solve big problems • V1/V2 Bridging • Security • Professional Developers Conference. • Aim is to showcase solution • Conference Room projector is a start… • We are committed • Build it, ship it, sell it, make money

10. Next Steps • New process defined in Member Agreement • Creates open process for architecture definition • Steering Committee • 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

11. OverviewThoughts not commitments • Addressing - IETF Zeroconf • Discovery – SOAP • Description – SOAP, WSDL 1.2 • Control – SOAP • Eventing – SOAP • Security – SOAP • Presentation – HTTP, XHTML

12. Addressing • IETF Zeroconf • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-07.txt • Very similar to existing Auto IP with some refinements • 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

13. Discovery • Many options to consider • SSDP with scalability extensions • Hard to standardize in IETF • SOAP-based protocol • SOAP expression of SLPv2 semantics

14. Description • Align with WS-I Basic Profile (WSDL doc/literal format) • http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2002-10/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

15. 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?

16. 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

17. Security • WS-Security • SOAP-based messages and services • Available on MSDN now at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/wssecurspecindex.asp • Several parts including WS-Trust and WS-SecureConversation • Currently comparing to UPnP Security Services WC output to ensure all requirements met

18. 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

19. For the interconnected lifestyle