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. Overview Thoughts 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 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.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2002- 10/BasicProfile-1.0-WGD.htm  http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12 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 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.a sp?url=/library/en- us/dnglobspec/html/wssecurspecindex.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.a sp?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