The present invention relates to unified communications (UC) systems, and more particularly, to providing a highly scalable system for interconnecting distinct and independent UC systems in a federated manner.
A unified communications (UC) system generally refers to a system that provides users with an integration of communications services. Users typically connect to the UC system through a single client to access the integrated communications services. The integrated communications services may include real-time services, such as instant messaging (IM), presence notifications, telephony, and video conferencing, as well as non-real-time services, such as email, SMS, fax, and voicemail.
Organizations, such as corporations, businesses, educational institutions, and government entities, often employ UC systems to enable internal communication among its members in a uniform and generally cost-efficient manner. In addition, organizations may employ UC systems for communicating with trusted external entities.
Currently, a number of third-party developers offer various UC applications for implementing UC systems. The various applications include Microsoft Office Communications Server (OCS), IBM Sametime (ST), Google Apps, and Cisco Jabber.
Often, a UC system needs to communicate with a different UC system. For example, a corporation or business that employs a particular UC system may desire to communicate externally with vendors or other persons who employ a different UC system. Or in the case of internal communication, when an organization that employs a particular UC system “A” merges with another organization that employs a UC system “B,” the ability for users on system “A” to communicate with users on system “B” is often desirable.
Because there is no industry standard regarding UC systems, communications between different UC systems give rise to issues of incompatibility. These issues often make communication between the UC systems difficult or impossible to implement. One aspect of UC system incompatibility is whether or not systems attempting to communicate support proxies. If a UC system based on standards and protocols that do not accommodate proxies attempts to establish communications with a proxy-based system, the attempt will fail: the respective protocols to establish a connection will, in effect, talk past each other. For example, Cisco Jabber is not compatible with Microsoft OCS. The incompatibility is because Jabber is based on the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (“XMPP”), which does not accommodate proxies, while Microsoft OCS is based on the Session Initiation Protocol (“SIP”), which does accommodate proxies.
One conventional solution to the compatibility problem is a system-wide shift to one UC system or another. In the foregoing example of merging business entities using UC system “A” and “B,” the merged organization can abandon one or the other UC system, and re-provision uniformly. In
In one embodiment, a computer-executable method comprises broadcasting a network address of a federation computer with an identification of the federation computer as a server for domains operating on a proxy-less protocol. The method includes establishing communications with a server on the network according to a proxy-less communications protocol to receive data bound for a destination domain that operates according to a proxy-based communications protocol and to receive data bound for a destination domain that operates according to a proxy-less communications protocol. Further, the method calls for establishing communications with a proxy on the network according to a proxy-based protocol to receive data bound for a destination domain.
In an alternate embodiment a computer-executable method comprises broadcasting, over a computer network including a plurality of computers in network domains and a federation computer configured to send and receive data according to proxy-based and proxy-less protocols, a network address of the federation computer and an identification of the federation computer as a server for at least one domain configured according to a proxy-less communications protocol. This embodiment also calls for directing data traffic on the computer network to the federation computer based on the broadcast and a priority over another network-identified server for the destination domain, the priority established at an originating domain; and directing data traffic on the computer network to the federation computer based on an identification of the federation computer as a proxy computer at an originating domain.
In a further embodiment, a system, comprises a first network communications component and a second communications component. The first communications component is for sending and receiving data according to a proxy-less communications protocol and is configurable to connect between at least two computers on a network. In this, the first communications component receives data that has been routed to it over the network on the basis of the system identifying itself on the network as a server. The second communications component is for sending and receiving data according to a proxy-based communications protocol. The second communications component is configurable to interconnect between at least two computers. In this, the second communications component receives data that has been routed to it over a network on the basis of a message-originating server's considering the system to be a proxy. The embodiment also includes a managing component that is in communication with the first and second network components. The managing component is for directing data transfer between the components.
Drawings, which are a portion of this specification, explain and teach aspects, advantages and novel features of the invention and facilitate the description of various embodiments, however, the drawings do not describe every aspect of the teachings disclosed herein and do not limit the scope of the claimed invention
These figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, and elements of similar structures or functions are generally represented by like reference numerals for illustrative purposes throughout the figures.
Federation computer 450 comprises a proxy-based connector 451, a proxy-free (typically server-to-server) connector 452, and message manager 453 which includes memory 454. The proxy-based connector establishes connections, sends, and receives data according to a proxy-based communications protocol. Similarly, the proxy-free connector establishes connections, sends, and receives data according to a proxy-free communications protocol. The message manager, amongst other functions, transfers data from one connector to the other, directly or through intermediate components such as a memory device (not shown).
Network 400 includes domains that send and receive messages according to proxy-based and proxy-free protocols. Because domains 412 and 414 include proxy computers, domains 412 and 414 run proxy-based communications protocols to forward data from an originating server in the domain to a destination. One example of a proxy-based communications protocol is the Session Initiation Protocol (“SIP”). Domains 410, 411, and 413 do not include proxy computers: they run proxy-free communications protocols under Which servers communicate with servers. One example of a proxy-free protocol is the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (“XMPP”). In the exemplary embodiments that follow, a term-of-art, “server-to-server,” substitutes for “proxy-free.”
Embodiments of the invention enable any-to-any communication between domains operating on inconsistent proxy-based and proxy-free protocols by accommodating the inconsistent protocols. As a result, end users share presence information, send/receive instant messages, participate in multi-part text voice and video, as if all were served by the same UC protocol.
The accommodation has several aspects: In one aspect, federation computer 450 operates according to both protocols: the federation computer establishes connections, receives, and transmits data according to proxy-based and proxy-free protocols. In particular embodiments, when sending data to a server, federation computer 450 behaves as a server and communicates with connector 452 according to a server-to-server protocol, independent of whether the data was received according to the server-to-server protocol or a proxy-based protocol. When sending data to a proxy computer, the federation computer behaves as a proxy and communicates with connector 451 according to a proxy-based protocol, independent of whether the data was received according to a server-to-server protocol or the proxy-based protocol.
In another aspect, when originating a message, domains route data to the federation computer to accommodate any inconsistency between protocols of originating and destination domains. Domains route data to the federation computer responsive to the federation computer holding itself out to the network as a server, or a proxy, or a server and a proxy. In other embodiments domains route data to the federation computer based on a priority or identification established at the originating domain. Several illustrative examples follow:
With respect to
According to the invention, federation computer 450 identifies itself to network 400 as an XMPP server so that server 415 directs its message to the federation computer. More particularly, the federation computer broadcasts itself on the network as a server for the destination computer's domain. Broadcasting includes but is not limited to publication of records for network-wide lookup, such as publication of service (DNS SRV) records. In this example, the federation computer broadcasts its network address and an identification as a XMPP server for domain 414. This broadcast is accessible by devices over the network, in an otherwise conventional manner, including domains operating with the XMPP protocol. Server 415 on domain 410 (XMPP) looks-up a server for domain 414 (SIP) and determines, based on the broadcast, that federation computer 450 is an XMPP server. There is no other network broadcast of an XMPP server for the domain 414 because domain 414 is based on the SIP protocol, not the XMPP protocol. Server 415 and the federation computer then establish a connection based on the XMPP protocol and data transfers to the federation computer through connector 452.
In accord with the multiple protocol aspect of the invention, the federation computer determines the protocol for the destination domain, domain 414, opens a connection with proxy 423 in domain 414 based on the SIP protocol with connector 451, and transmits data to the recipient at server 419. Message manager 453 manages data flow between connector 451 and 452. Typically, though not necessarily, at least a portion of the data is stored in a memory, for example, a buffer memory.
Federation computer 450 determines the protocol for the destination domain according to any number of techniques: an otherwise conventional routing table which maps domains to proxies; a host file entry identifies proxy 423 as the destination for domain 414; or proxy 423 publishes itself on network 400 as the destination for domain 414.
In another example (not shown), federation computer 450, through connector 451, communicates with a single proxy for multiple domains or multiple servers.
With respect to
As described above, federation computer 450 broadcasts to network 400 that it is an XMPP server for one or more XMPP domains, such as domains 410-413. In an instance where data both originates at an XMPP domain, and is destined for an XMPP domain, there are two XMPP servers broadcast on the network; federation computer 450 and the destination domain XMPP server, for example servers 415-418 for their respective domains.
To direct the data to the federation computer, embodiments of the invention include a′ priority, which is established at an originating domain. The priority orients the server in the originating domain to direct communications to the federation computer over any other network-published XMPP server for the destination domain.
In one exemplary embodiment, a server on the originating domain, for example server 415 in
Oriented by the priority established at an originating domain, server 415 establishes a connection with federation computer 450 with connector 452, according to the XMPP protocol, and transmits data to the federation computer.
In accord with the multiple protocol aspect of the invention, the federation computer determines the destination computer's communications protocol, which is XMPP. The determination is made, for example and not limitation, through published records (SRV records), or a routing table. The federation computer then, with connector 452, establishes communications with server 418 using the XMPP protocol and transmits the data.
With respect to
Embodiments of the invention orient data originating from SIP domains, for example originating from domain 412, to federation computer 450 by identifying the federation computer as a proxy at the originating domain. Identified as a proxy, the network-interfacing proxy in domain 412, proxy 422, and the federation computer establish a connection and transfer data with connector 451 according to the SIP protocol.
In alternate embodiments, federation computer 450 orients data from SIP domains to connector 451 by publishing itself as a destination for SIP domains. The network-interfacing proxy in domain 412, proxy 422, and the federation computer establish a connection and transfer data with connector 451 according to the SIP protocol.
In accord with the multiple protocol aspect of the invention, the federation computer determines the destination computer's communications protocol, which is XMPP. The determination is made, for example and not limitation, through published records (SRV records), or a routing table. The federation computer then, with connector 452, establishes communications with the destination server, server 416, and transmits data to the destination computer according to the XMPP protocol.
With respect to
Communications from a SIP domain to a SIP domain are as in Example 3, except that federation computer 450, having determined that the destination computer operates on the SIP protocol, establishes a connection with connector 451 and transmits data to the destination computer through proxy 423 according to the SIP protocol. In this case, the federation computer acts as a destination proxy for domain 412 and a source proxy for domain 414.
The foregoing examples and description are discrete. In typical applications, federation computer 450 establishes concurrent communications of the different types described above (XMPP-SIP; XMPP-XMPP; SIP-XMPP; and SIP-SIP). That is, the federation computer supports real time, seamless, any-to-any communications presence.
Then, at each instance of a received message, and in accord with the multiple protocol aspect of the invention, at block 525, the federation computer determines the protocol for the destination computer. The determination is made, for example and not limitation, through published records (SRV service records), or a routing table. In block 530, the federation computer establishes communications with the destination computer based on the destination computer's protocol. In block 535, the federation computer transmits data to the destination computer according to the destination computer's protocol.
Security and encrypted communications are important features in a UC system. In the context of otherwise conventional transport layer security (TLS) communications, the aforementioned compatibility problem between proxy-based and proxy-free protocols is present. A proxy-based system, such as SIP, accepts certificates of intermediate proxies because the system attempts to match the domain name in the certificate with the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) of the proxy the system is connected to rather than the destination domain of the message. In contrast, a proxy-free system, such as XMPP, requires that it directly deliver the message to the destination domain's server: it attempts to match the domain name in a presented certificate with the destination domain of the message.
In different embodiments, data transfers to and from the federation computer are unencrypted, or encrypted with otherwise conventional security protocols such as TLS. Typically, embodiments of federation computer 450 (
In an exemplary embodiment with TLS, memory 454 includes information for each domain served by the federation computer. For each domain participating in TLS secure communications, memory 454 stores a valid certificate, such as certificates issued by VeriSign, Inc. of Reston Va., a valid public cryptography key, and a valid private cryptography key. Memory 454 also stores an association between domains, and the protocol of the domain (for example, SIP or XMPP for a particular domain). Memory 454 also may store associations between a domain and its FQDN record and a service (SRV) record. In other embodiments, rather than store FQDN or SRV records, the federation computer performs a lookup of the records on the network. With memory 454 being a repository for certificates and keys of participating domains, the federation computer can establish TLS communications with every participating domain, presenting itself as a destination domain. Without the certificates communication can still occur, but without TLS.
Federation computer 750 comprises a proxy-based connector 751, a proxy-free connector 752, and message manager 753, which includes memory 754. In different embodiments, memory is in other locations in the federation computer. Many devices and locations are possible. Memory 754 includes TLS information 790, which includes but is not limited to domain names and associated private cryptographic keys and certificates. In
In one scenario, domain DOM1.com attempts to federate with domain DOM2.com. DOM1.com operates under a proxy-free protocol. As described above in foregoing examples, domain DOM1.com directs data to federation computer 450 after determining that the federation computer is a server for domain DOM2.com. After receiving data indicating that domain DOM2.com is the destination domain, the federation computer retrieves certificate CERT2 and private key PK2 from memory 754. The federation computer then presents CERT2 to domain DOM1.com, which authenticates the federation computer as the authorized server for DOM2.com. The federation computer then uses private cryptography key PK2 to encrypt and decrypt data in DOM1.com-federation computer communications.
A method and system for federation of proxy-based and proxy-free communications systems is disclosed. Although various embodiments have been described with respect to specific examples and subsystems, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that the concepts disclosed herein are not limited to these specific examples or subsystems but extends to other embodiments as well. Included within the scope of these concepts are all of these other embodiments as specified in the claims that follow.
Applicant claims priority to Application 61/439,745, filed on Feb. 4, 2011; and incorporates the entirety of Application 61/439,745 in this document by this reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5784612 | Crane et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
6041281 | Nimura et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6065016 | Stuntebeck et al. | May 2000 | A |
6208986 | Schneck et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6298128 | Ramey et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6418200 | Ciccolella et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6463056 | Silva et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6591291 | Gabber et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6654759 | Brunet et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665378 | Spielman et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6738462 | Brunson | May 2004 | B1 |
6892245 | Crump et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
7051114 | Ravishankar et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7269432 | Gress et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7443961 | Schroeder et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7558827 | Kawashima et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7577132 | Katz et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7697924 | Caspi et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7698398 | Lai | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7706266 | Plamondon | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7739333 | Serr et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7953979 | Borneman et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8145719 | Barman | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8200758 | Serr et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8359357 | Rodriguez et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8380661 | Richards et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8970553 | Park et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9077726 | Pujare et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9203799 | Bellan et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9241012 | De Castro, Jr. et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
20020037074 | Dowens et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020083183 | Pujare et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087704 | Chesnais et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020124057 | Besprosvan | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020157089 | Patel et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030018725 | Turner et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030149781 | Yared et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040083297 | Gazzetta et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050022006 | Bass et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050047438 | Sylvain et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050102513 | Alve | May 2005 | A1 |
20050175021 | Ozugur et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050288961 | Tabrizi | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060021017 | Hinton et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021019 | Hinton et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060053384 | La Fetra et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060120362 | Westman et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060128409 | Gress et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136990 | Hinton et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060205434 | Tom et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060230124 | Belfiore et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070011245 | Kawashima et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070130343 | Pardo-Blazquez et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070136603 | Kuecuekyan | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070202897 | Smith | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070234417 | Blakley, III et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070285503 | Asthana et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080010665 | Hinton et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021997 | Hinton | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080032695 | Zhu et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080072301 | Chia et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082662 | Dandliker et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080086564 | Putman et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080144896 | Burke | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080215694 | Chen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080215717 | Zhou et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080219223 | Bienas et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080320576 | Curling | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006076 | Jindal | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090019115 | Larson et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090019367 | Cavagnari et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090049190 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049202 | Pattison et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090077251 | Brown et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089625 | Kannappan et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090094336 | Echevarria et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090100289 | Chen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119763 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138615 | Cristallo et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150905 | Lin et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172776 | Makagon et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090177735 | Algie et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090180602 | Ramanathan et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210496 | Shaffer et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090276840 | Cao et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090292814 | Ting et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090307327 | Malik et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090319672 | Reisman | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327419 | Serr et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327441 | Lee et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327868 | Tsukikawa | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017598 | Rodriguez et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100057851 | Ionescu et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100058120 | Coleman et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100925 | Hinton | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100162374 | Nair | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100205664 | Serr et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100223334 | Narayanan et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251158 | Geppert et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100287226 | Wright et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100290611 | Ramanathan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110035443 | Jensen | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110138028 | Katz et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110179180 | Schleifer et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110231473 | Narayanan et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110231919 | Vangpat et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110238761 | Mizokami | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110271332 | Jones et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110304686 | Qiu et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314014 | Junginger et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120008753 | Burnett et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120036566 | Nicholson et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120084254 | Richards et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120163577 | Buford et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120180105 | Downes et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185391 | Sirota | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120190325 | Abu-Hakima et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120203913 | Pujare et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120216267 | Austel et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120254326 | Bellan et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120254373 | Pujare et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120274725 | Robertson | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120303672 | Anand et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130007150 | Hertz et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130065618 | Long et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130066871 | Fletcher et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130067365 | Shrufi et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130132285 | Richards et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130151709 | Luna | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160105 | Huang et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130198386 | Srikanth et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130246640 | Ahrens | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268920 | Ursal et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140148934 | Manley et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140280931 | Braun et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140280932 | Braun et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282816 | Xie et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282934 | Miasnik et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140289303 | Tarricone et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140337954 | Ahmed et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140359027 | Pujare et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150032700 | Mermelstein | Jan 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1549024 | Jun 2005 | EP |
2002039237 | May 2002 | WO |
2015054522 | Apr 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US12/24014, dated May 23, 2012, 8 pp. |
Beuchelt, G., et al., “RESTful Services Guidance for Developers v 1.0”, MITRE Technical Report MTR100093, Apr. 2010, 46 pages. |
Bogusz, Dariusz, et al., “Telco 2.0 for UC — an example of integration telecommunications service provider's SDP with enterprise UC system”, FedCSIS 2012, Wroclaw, Poland, Sep. 9-12, 2012, pp. 603-606. |
Bossoli, Francesca, et al.; “Proposal for Common Interoperability Protocol”, Online, Aug. 30, 2003, pp. 1-3, XP002283230. |
“Chapter 21—Voice Messaging”, Cisco Unififed Communications System Description—Release 9.0 SRND, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, Apr. 30, 2013, 44 pages. |
“Cisco Unified Communications System Description Release 8.5(1)”, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, (c) 2010, 90 pages. |
Ennai, Anuraj, et al., “MobileSOA: A Service Oriented Web 2.0 Framework for Context-Aware, Lightweight and Flexible Mobile Applications”, EDOCW 2008, Munich, Germany, Sep. 16, 2008, pp. 345-352. |
Levy, Brian, “The common capability approach to new service development”, BT Technology Journal, vol. 23, No. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 48-54. |
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, (c) 2002, p. 16. |
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, (c) 2002, p. 474. |
“Nimsoft® Monitor™Server, Getting Started Guide version 6.00” (Jun. 29, 2012 to Nimsoft), 46 pages. |
“Office-LinX Cloud Connect Edition for Cisco Unity Connection”, Esna Technologies, Inc., Richmond Hill, ON, Canada©2012, 2 pages. |
PCT International Search Report issued Aug. 5, 2016 in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/031304 filed May 6, 2016, inventor Bellan, Saravanan et al. |
PCT International Search Report issued Aug. 26, 2016 in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/031330 filed May 6, 2016, inventor Bellan, Saravanan et al. |
PCT International Search Report issued Jan. 2, 2015 in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/059944 filed Oct. 9, 2014, inventor Pujare, Sanjay et al. |
PCT International Search Report issued Oct. 22, 2014 in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/041595 filed May 9, 2014, inventor Pujare, Sanjay et al. |
PCT International Search Report issued May 23, 2012 in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2012/024014 filed Feb. 6, 2012, inventor Pujare, Sanjay et al. |
“Representational state transfer”, Wikipedia, downloaded from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational—state—transfer on Feb. 2, 2015, pp. 1-5. |
Supplementary European Search Report issued Aug. 20, 2014 in corresponding EP Application No. EP 11862613 filed Apr. 26, 2011, inventor Pujare, Sanjay et al. |
Technical Specification “Interdomain Federation for IM and Presence Service on Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Release 9.0(1)”, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, Jul. 18, 2012, 188 pages. |
“Web Application Description Language”, Wikipedia, downloaded from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web—Application—Description—Language on Feb. 2, 2015, pp. 1-3. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120203913 A1 | Aug 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61439745 | Feb 2011 | US |