Hey Habr! I present to your attention the translation-adaptation of the article Author , in which he addresses the challenge of integrating Microsoft Teams with other products.
July 9 2018 city
Will your Skype for Business infrastructure come in handy now and why Microsoft blocks third-party audio / video solutions from accessing Teams.
Being on InfoComm (exhibition June 13-19, 2018 - approx. Editor Video+Conference), I once again remembered how huge the global audio and video market is. Among several hundred vendors at the exhibition, well-known ones were presented: BlueJeans, Crestron, Lifesize, Pexip, Polycom - now Plantronics, StarLeaf, Zoom.
I had a great idea to find out what these companies are doing to integrate with Microsoft Teams. They are all compatible with Skype for Business, but we've heard Microsoft say that the Teams integration will work differently. InfoComm gave me the opportunity to ask manufacturers questions directly and get a general idea of how this integration will be implemented. At that time, I did not yet know how complex and controversial this topic would turn out to be.
A bit of history
It is impossible to understand the issues of collaboration with Teams if you do not know how the integration with Skype for Business was arranged. Microsoft lifted the veil by revealing the protocols, signaling, and audio/video codecs used. In essence, Microsoft has published a specification for the Skype for Business audio and video protocols and made it possible for third parties to embed them into their own communication protocol stacks in order to gain some kind of interoperability. This required a lot of effort, but nevertheless, some vendors were able to create working solutions using these specifications. For example, AudioCodes, Polycom, Spectralink, and Yealink have used these specifications in their Microsoft-certified audio hardware for Skype for Business. This equipment is registered with the Skype for Business server and users are authenticated directly from their devices using a SfB mobile or desktop account.
All phones that work with Skype for Business are defined by Microsoft as third party IP phones - 3PIP - and interact with the local or online version of SfB. Defining a phone as 3PIP is very important for working with Microsoft Teams.
Polycom, when developing its RealPresence Group series of video conferencing devices, decided to go a little further. Using the specifications, the company has developed a software module that allows its equipment to connect and register directly with the Skype for Business server. That is, these client terminals can be connected directly to any Skype for Business audio or video conference.
Microsoft has also released software specifications for its Skype Room System (SRS) videoconferencing solution, versions 1 and 2, which is a group conferencing solution. While partners may add some unique customizations, they must install the Microsoft SRS software on their hardware. Microsoft's goal was to make sure that the Skype for Business experience is no different for customers, whether it's partner hardware or Microsoft's SfB applications.
SRS solutions are developed by Crestron, HP, Lenovo, Logitech, Polycom, Smart Technologies. True, Smart only developed a solution for the first version of the SRS specification. Well, Microsoft itself is called the Microsoft Surface Hub.
Compatibility of third-party audio and video devices with local and cloud versions of Skype for Business
So far, we've discussed third-party solutions integrated with Skype for Business Server for when the conference is hosted on a Skype for Business server. These first integration steps were followed by others.
Skype on desktops and other terminals
Skype for Business (aka Lync) is not universally distributed, however, it is used in a lot of organizations. Some of these organizations also have video client terminals from Cisco, Lifesize, Polycom, and others. And businesses need solutions that enable users of Skype for Business client applications to call third-party terminals.
In response to this request, some companies such as Acano and Pexip have created on-premises solutions that allow Skype for Business video terminals to connect to standard SIP and H.323 conferences. This idea was so successful that in early 2016, Cisco bought Acano for $700 million and fully incorporated this product into what is now Cisco Meeting Server.
Cloud conferencing providers have also jumped into this compatibility game. BlueJeans, Lifesize, Polycom, Starleaf and Zoom have developed solutions that allow users of Skype for Business client applications to connect to conferences involving video conferencing terminals running on standard protocols. All of these third-party solutions use the Skype for Business audio/video specifications to enable interoperability between SfB workstations on the one hand, and other people's phones, terminals, MCUs, and cloud video conferencing solutions on the other.
Teams innovations and challenges
The world has adapted to Microsoft's proprietary approach and third-party developers are integrating their solutions harmoniously with Skype for Business.
So why did Microsoft mess up with Teams?
Microsoft said it wants to create a new communications platform that provides both innovation and the ability to comfortably use different devices. That's why Teams was built into the Next Generation Communications Service (NGCS) to work with the entire audio and video technology stack.
The new service is based on the usual home Skype. This means that the user versions of Skype and Teams share the same cloud communication protocol. The service supports Silk, Opus, G.711 and G.722 audio codecs, as well as H.264 AVC video codec. That is, these are the same protocols that are supported by many third-party manufacturers of audio and video systems.
But there are major differences in the signaling protocol and transport.
Microsoft's proprietary signal processing technologies provide full-duplex stereo echo cancellation, adaptive frequency compensation, lost packet recovery or concealment, and audio over video priority to ensure high-quality audio and video communications under various network conditions. Some of these features are available in the terminals, some require cloud services, which means that the terminal and the service must be synchronized in order to work effectively.
Now many alternative solutions support the same codecs, provide noise suppression, error correction and much more. So why did Microsoft essentially cut off third-party audio and video solutions from accessing Teams? Microsoft claims to have introduced many innovations to Teams, but these advanced features require constant updates to both Teams and the client. Third-party programs and video technologies in this case greatly reduce the quality of communication to the lowest common capabilities. This kills Microsoft's efforts to provide users with access to improved features and a consistent user experience across devices: PCs, tablets, smartphones, desk phones, and video devices. At the conference Microsoft has provided examples of these improved features:
- Voice control of conferences with Cortana
- Microsoft Graph, which will help determine the likely interlocutor, and when artificial intelligence is connected, it can throw up the files under discussion or even offer to make a new meeting
- Translate
- Real-time audio recording and transcription
- Room scanning, people recognition and appropriate framing and camera aiming
What next?
So, Microsoft uncompromisingly requires its software to be preinstalled on third-party devices. Now let's figure out which of your devices with Skype for Business installed will now work with Teams, and more importantly, which will not.
Skype for Business and Teams compatibility
Skype for Business and Teams users can IM between their respective client applications. You can directly call a Teams user from a phone that has Skype for Business installed or from a client, and vice versa. However, this compatibility only works for point-to-point calls. Group conferences and chats are only available to users within one of the solutions.
Incoming and outgoing connections in the public switched telephone networks (PSTN)
All incoming and outgoing calls between Teams and PSTN subscribers go through the session border controller (SBC). Microsoft currently supports SBCs from AudioCodes, Ribbon Communications, and ThinkTel. Of course, if you're calling through Microsoft programs, you don't need your own SBC. But if you have your own PSTN connection directly through an ISP over SIP trunks or over trunks connected to cloud or local branch exchanges (PBXs), you will need your own SBC.
Microsoft said that some telephony service providers in different countries are developing Teams-compatible PSTN offerings. Microsoft called them "direct routing".
How to use third party phones (3PIP) with Skype for Business installed to work with Teams
If you bought a Skype for Business-certified 3PIP phone, then Microsoft has built gateways into the next-generation communications service that will allow your device to work with Teams.
Moreover, some 3PIP phones run Android. These devices receive updates that will enable you to take advantage of new Teams features as they become available. More specifically, these phones will run an application that uses the new Microsoft protocol stack to connect directly to Teams without any gateways. 3PIP devices running other operating systems will not receive updates with new Teams features. Updates are available for 3PIP devices AudioCodes C450HD, Crestron Mercury, Polycom Trio and Yealink CP960, T56 and T58. These manufacturers will start releasing phones with native Teams support in 2019.
Skype Room Systems (SRS) and Surface Hub
Microsoft promises that any partner devices of the Skype Room Systems (SRS) standard will receive updates that will turn these devices into Teams terminals. After that, they will receive continuous updates for Teams as they become available. All Surface Hub devices will also receive updates to enable Teams.
Gateways connecting traditional video conferencing endpoints to Teams
Microsoft has chosen three partners - BlueJeans, Pexip and Polycom - to provide interoperability between standard video teleconferencing (VTC) terminals and Teams. These solutions are very similar, but there are some differences. All of their services are only available in the Microsoft Azure cloud and use Microsoft APIs to interact with the next-generation Teams interface. They primarily provide signaling and media gateways between video terminals and Teams.
While Microsoft supports integration with standard terminals, it does so with some disregard. The fact is that the user interaction there is not the same as in Teams. On video terminals, it looks more like Skype for Business - multiple video streams, the ability to share the screen and see what is shown on the screen.
For example, BlueJeans offers BlueJeans Gateway for Teams (BlueJeans Gateway for Teams), a service available through the Azure cloud. This gateway can be purchased separately, i.e. without having to purchase any BlueJeans services. The beta version of the solution is being tested by partners participating in the Microsoft Technology Adoption Program (TAP). BlueJeans believes it will be available by the end of the summer. BlueJeans Gateway for Teams will be available from the Microsoft Store, directly from BlueJeans, or from a Microsoft channel partner. Most likely, versions for both personal and collective use will be available. The service can be configured through the Office 365 admin panel.
Information about connecting to a meeting using BlueJeans Gateway for Teams can be automatically distributed through a meeting invitation. The link “Connect to the video room” contains the address of the terminal.
To connect to a Teams conference, the room video system calls the gateway directly using the information provided in the invitation, or BlueJeans sends the connection information directly to the terminal through its daemon. If the terminal supports “one-button” connection, then it can be turned on with one touch, or activated using the touch panel controller.
The Pexip solution allows organizations to run a dedicated copy of the Pexip Gateway for Teams in the Azure cloud. Pexip will manage your copy of the gateway as part of the service suite. But in this case, you will have to pay for the processing required for it to work in Azure.
Polycom's RealConnect is a multi-tenant solution that runs in the Azure cloud. The price includes all processing in Azure. RealConnect is currently in beta testing by several Microsoft TAP members.
Cisco, Lifesize and Zoom
From what it looks like right now, Cisco, Lifesize, Zoom, and any other video services will not be able to interact with Teams at all (a workaround will be described below) unless you have a gateway solution installed from one of the three partners above.
Compatibility with Teams by StarLeaf
StarLeaf offers a solution for interacting with Teams, but Microsoft does not support it, although it says that compatibility with this solution may be provided with updates to Teams.
I was trying to understand why Microsoft objects to StarLeaf's implementation. She seemed reasonable to me. Here's how it works: StarLeaf deploys the full version of Teams on a Windows virtual machine that boots on top of a Linux kernel running on the StarLeaf video terminal. The StarLeaf Maestro control program also runs on Linux. Maestro has access to Microsoft Exchange and sees the room's schedule or individual user's schedule. When a Teams conference is assigned to this terminal (this scheme also works for Skype for Business, by the way), Maestro uses the Teams API to automatically connect Teams to the conference. At the same time, Teams video content is routed through the API to the StarLeaf screen. The StarLeaf user does not see the Teams user interface.
StarLeaf's Teams solution is based on the Linux kernel. On top of it is a Windows virtual machine that runs both Teams and Skype for Business client applications. Teams video content is displayed, but the Teams UI is not visible.
Microsoft states in this regard that StarLeaf distributes the Teams client on its devices without verified authorization. They require authorization from all companies to ensure that the software they distribute is safe, legal, and up to date. By distributing Microsoft software without authorization, StarLeaf, in their opinion, is misleading users, because users who purchase this software will not receive Microsoft support.
However, it seems to me that since StarLeaf uses a genuine Teams client with a user-purchased license, and this client can be updated using standard Microsoft tools, technically this solution should work fine.
Microsoft claims that StarLeaf uses methods in its software to control the Teams app that Microsoft did not develop or support. It is possible that if Microsoft changes the core functionality or interface of Teams, the StarLeaf solution will stop working. But in this case, other solutions “approved” by Microsoft may stop working.
Polycom Trio
At InfoComm, I explored the Polycom Trio interface for audio and video communications through Teams.
The Teams-compatible Trio runs on Android, and as a result, runs on Android that Microsoft has customized for its partners. Because it runs software from Microsoft, Trio can connect directly to Teams. But only for audio communication.
With video communication, everything is trickier. When running the Trio Visual+ package with Teams, video content flows through the Polycom RealConnect gateway in the Azure cloud.
Trio connects directly to Teams during an audio call. When the Trio Visual+ package is used for video communication, the audio and video streams pass through the Polycom RealConnect service in Azure and then go to Teams.
Microsoft states that this technology is not certified or supported. I don't know why Microsoft thinks so. When Trio Visual+ is used with Teams, audio and video streams pass through the Polycom RealConnect gateway, which they have certified and supported. In this sense, video communication works exactly the same as on any other video terminal. It's just that the interface isn't as well designed, which is what irritates Microsoft. So even though Microsoft doesn't certify or support this solution, it works and it's quite ingenious.
Cisco Bots and Zoom for Teams
What about Cisco or Zoom users? It turns out that both companies have developed bots for Teams that run their solutions.
With these bots, you can invite participants to video conferences from a conversation in Teams. The chat hosts a link that, when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the Zoom app.
An example of how third-party solutions work with Teams via a bot. Bots place a link in a Teams chat that, when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the Zoom video conferencing solution.
The only certified and supported devices for Teams
Microsoft insists that only devices that have Microsoft software installed can work directly with Teams. This year (in 2018 - approx. Editor Video+Conference) is expected to release new IP phones with Android and the pre-installed Teams application. Customers on these phones will receive updates directly from Microsoft as they become available.
The only terminals supported and certified for direct integration with Teams are the Skype Room System (SRS) and Surface Hub devices. Of course, Microsoft also approved the video terminal gateways mentioned above from BlueJeans, Pexip and Polycom. Everything else is not supported by Microsoft. By the way, I don’t know why Microsoft is still using the Skype Room System brand ... I was waiting for it to turn into Teams Room System for a long time, but time will tell. (Microsoft announced the rebrand on January 23, 2019 - approx. editor)
Polycom has been developing group video endpoints that are compatible with Skype for Business. We are talking about the Polycom MSR line. Now they will work with Teams as well. Teams phones from Polycom will be coming in early 2019 and I think Polycom will introduce some group video terminals for Teams, but there hasn't been any word on that yet.
We also have to consider that Microsoft now supports WebRTC. Conference participants who do not have Teams installed can connect via WebRTC. This feature will appear first in the Microsoft Edge browser, but immediately after that it will be available in other browsers that support WebRTC (Chrome, Firefox, and, of course, Safari).
Conclusion
Microsoft is clearly going to put an end to the variety of third-party unsupported solutions. This forces partners and end users to work hard to get the device or software to work with Teams. Although, looking from the other side, where Microsoft is also looking, Teams is a new dynamic collaboration environment with great features, the number of which will continue to grow. New features will require some changes in the cloud and on the client side. Therefore, Microsoft must be able to update both services and client applications at the same time to ensure the best possible experience and communications. Any compromise will result in a poorer user experience and thus less overall capability. BlueJeans, Pexip and Polycom's solutions for interacting with terminals confirm this.
Video terminals that don't have Teams installed provide access to very few platform features. User experience management seems to be becoming a common and growing trend in the industry. So, Cisco, with its Webex Teams, is trying to improve interaction by controlling the user interface. And, like Microsoft, it maintains a WebRTC version of its client that provides work with video terminals.
Zoom, in turn, is expanding its own video conferencing solution. Zoom not only supports video conferencing terminals from other manufacturers, but also developed its own Zoom Room software for group video conferencing, a PC client (though not based on WebRTC) and clients for mobile devices.
What can I say about all this?
I use video calls… a lot. Mostly from my PC, but I also have a 1080p SIP-based video phone on my desktop and I use Skype for Business (via Office 365) on my PC. However, now I also use Webex Teams to connect with Cisco people, and Microsoft Teams to connect with people at Microsoft.
I hate downloading new clients and have been known to tell many vendors that if their systems don't support Skype for Business or WebRTC, I won't participate in conferences with them (audio calls being the exception), simply because I don't want to litter my computer with a bunch of new applications.
However, there is a trend in our industry - at least among the mainstream developers - towards providing a complete solution with improved user experience and advanced features. Only to access it, you need to install a client from a specific vendor on all devices - whether it's a PC or meeting room solutions. And even on third-party peripherals (for example, phones), the software of this vendor must be running.
I was hoping that with the help of WebRTC it would be possible to overcome the need for specific client applications and we would only need a browser as an interface. In this case, the browser will be a common interface for all types of communications and services. Of course, WebRTC has some limitations, but Cisco recently announced that the new version of the Webex WebRTC client will provide users with a full range of collaboration capabilities.
Each developer must clearly position their offer, and one of the criteria is the set of features in applications. To provide the best user experience and access to core functionality, the vendor must control both client applications and cloud services. This direction is headed by Microsoft along with Teams and integration solutions. And whether we like it or not, we are moving in this direction together with other vendors. I tell my clients that now is the best time to consider migrating your communications and work environment to a single solution from one specific vendor.
Source: habr.com