[clue] Data model - agreement on objective and basic approach

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 29 October 2012 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 EDE5321F8732 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AEIQLRfbl2qq for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A6D21F873A for <clue@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so3629388lbo.31 for <clue@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=P1Y9c/wM1Wi1ImJ3Gwd0P7Hr5FIwzsqXlVsMPUkHWbI=; b=rfPLx+waQmGJ9OohexZFwFFvVo0lcRsCUWLj22xOCxvjxcWeQU0oHhqqCys4dVYEFl rFgDyorNProYmuJABuXfJCZl+ex5gkOrM8uHaMfl44JfLLHdj0zgsOy0cuGI8R15HU5m lJWdo3Y43PQzt02wY0N9u4ySdrCAJDHvDg9CyU3VB6JoPSZHAf3sF3ibczOsL+6xWe6+ lZH0BShPWeRwMRHj6AspIZlOGOrO36Cw1oeYBmzifBsh8b+ozhmO+h848GHJm6YD6eL6 AvR2ScyEPrmJnUDkc4q2F97p78Gv30BeBswWdTra3YeuALV83oWozICLq73qCHt0v478 8ixQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.99.37 with SMTP id en5mr12249789lbb.1.1351533130629; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.69.139 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:52:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN77gnw_oMrJ5JqfBvLvx0940MvxwVdhqE8y_np-+681rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: CLUE <clue@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401f9ff27412604cd36541f
Subject: [clue] Data model - agreement on objective and basic approach
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:52:13 -0000

On the call earlier today, we also discussed the data model.  The general
agreement on the call is that the data model as reflected in
draft-presta-clue-data-model-schema describes the data needed by the CLUE
application - i.e., it's the CLUE instance concept.  It does not directly
reflect the contents of a CLUE message.  The application data would be used
to populate CLUE messages, as well as SDP and would reflect updates based
on both the CLUE and SDP signaling.

If we can get agreement on that before the meeting, I believe our
discussions can be much more productive. If folks could please reply "Yes"
or "No" reflecting agreement with the above, that would be helpful.  If you
reply "No", please explain why.

Regards,
Mary
as CLUE WG co-chair