[clue] need review of propsed change by Simon to the data model
"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Thu, 09 August 2018 10:21 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8097C130E04 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSZw4YTH6UCK for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DA0512F1AB for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C1E3C8BE70FB5 for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:21:21 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:21:22 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.158]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 18:21:18 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: need review of propsed change by Simon to the data model
Thread-Index: AdQvyoP8W2vjwgzpQ6OS6AUcan8hAA==
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 10:21:18 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8BB376@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.143]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8BB376DGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/LQYTCPe6wk45gb0cRQRgGS-pO2k>
Subject: [clue] need review of propsed change by Simon to the data model
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 10:21:29 -0000
Hi, Please review Simon’s proposal bellow Roni Even CLUE WG co-chair From: clue [mailto:clue-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Pietro Romano Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 1:09 PM To: Adam Roach Cc: clue@ietf.org Subject: Re: [clue] AD Review: draft-ietf-clue-protocol-13 Please read below for a further (minor) issue we encountered… **************************************************************************************************************************************** NOTE TO THE GROUP, DATA MODEL RELATED: While doing the call flow homework, we realized there’s a minor modification that would be desirable inside the data model schema. Namely, there is a “sceneViewIDREF” field that we defined ad IDREF (In terms of XML datatypes). This seemed OK at that time. Though, we now realized that it prevents correct validation of CONFIGURE messages, An example of the mentioned issue can be found in the (NOT currently valid) “Conf+Ack” excerpt I am attaching g below (where the culprit is in bold): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <ns2:configure xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:clue-info" xmlns:ns2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:clue-protocol" xmlns:ns3="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vcard-4.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:clue-protocol http://wpage.unina.it/spromano/clue-protocol-15-schema-file.xsd" protocol="CLUE" v="2.7"> <ns2:clueId>CP2</ns2:clueId> <ns2:sequenceNr>22</ns2:sequenceNr> <ns2:advSequenceNr>11</ns2:advSequenceNr> <ns2:ack>200</ns2:ack> <ns2:captureEncodings> <captureEncoding ID="ce123"> <captureID>AC0</captureID> <encodingID>ENC4</encodingID> </captureEncoding> <captureEncoding ID="ce223"> <captureID>VC3</captureID> <encodingID>ENC1</encodingID> <configuredContent> <sceneViewIDREF>SE1</sceneViewIDREF> </configuredContent> </captureEncoding> </ns2:captureEncodings> </ns2:configure> In order to sort this issue out, it would be sufficient to modify the above mentioned IDREF type and let it become a simpler xs:string. With this modification, we might seamlessly reuse such a data model structure inside CLUE Configure messages (and not just inside Advertisements when describing MCC captures). Do you all agree on this proposal? **************************************************************************************************************************************** Cheers, Simon _\\|//_ ( O-O ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Pietro Romano Universita' di Napoli Federico II Computer Engineering Department Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816 e-mail: spromano@unina.it<mailto:spromano@unina.it> <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte. oooO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~( )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ ( ( ) \_) ) / (_/ Il giorno 18 mag 2018, alle ore 04:54, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> ha scritto: [re-sending due to an IETF mailing list server outage] On 4/11/18 12:31 PM, Simon Pietro Romano wrote: Hello Adam! We finally managed to get our review done. Please find our answers in-line, [SPR]-prefixed, as usual. ... [SPR] We have not yet added this consideration to the draft. I personally believe this makes sense. Do you think we should add this as a general consideration when introducing the overall state machines? That would probably be an improvement, yes. ... [SPR] We will keep this as an Action Point for us, to be fulfilled before submitting the very last version of the draft. Just a heads up that I'm waiting for the document to incorporate these two open items before progressing it. Thanks! /a
- [clue] need review of propsed change by Simon to … Roni Even (A)