Re: [MEDIACTRL] AD review: draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control package-09

Hi Spencer,

you can find inline ([LM]) a few comments on the two points.

Lorenzo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@nostrum.com>,
<mediactrl@ietf.org>
Cc:
draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] AD review:
draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control package-09
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:37:38 -0600

> Dear Mediactrl,
> 
> 
> > This draft is essentially ready to go. I have two
> > questions/comments  for  the group.
> 
> Robert is really trying to get Framework, IVR and MIXER
> into IETF Last Call  for publication, but we need to
> answer two questions that he asked. Please  look at these
> carefully.
> 
> > 1) As written, the reference to the XCON datamodel
> > document needs to  be  normative.
> >      (You have to know what's defined there to know when
> > a prefix is  required, and
> >        realistically, it's a must read to use any of the
> > video  layouts  defined there).
> >      I'm expecting XCON to pubreq that document within a
> > couple of  weeks,  so making
> >      the reference normative shouldn't slow down
> > publication of this  document.
> >      Would anyone object to making that reference
> normative?
> 
> I think Robert is correct here. I think the only possible
> alternative is to  require all video layouts to be
> prefixed with a label, whether it's defined  in [XCON] or
> not (that's the dependency that caught Robert's eye). Does
> anyone strongly disagree with moving the reference? to
> Normative?
> 
> Could the authors move this reference to Normative as
> requested and post a  new revision?
> 

[LM] Actually I'm not sure we really need an explicit
reference to the data model. Layouts are layouts with or
without XCON, and maybe just defining an extendable set of
valid layout strings in this document's schema is enough.

> > 2) I'm not easily finding where framework (or this
> > document) says what  happens
> >     when part of a command with multiple components
> > fails. For  instance,  in section
> >     4.2.2, there's an example of a join command that
> > operates two  different volumes.
> >     If one of those fails for some reason, does the
> > other one fail  with  it? Where is
> >     the text that says this is so?
> 
> We really need to make sure we all have the same
> understanding here...  Please state yours on this mailing
> list! ... but Robert said he would not  gate IETF Last
> Call on this question.
> 

[LM] If I recall correctly, both the packages only enforce a
request when all its components succeed, otherwise the
request is considered as failed and nothing is changed. I
remember implementing the prototype this way, so I guess
some text was there, but I'm not sure about that. It surely
makes sense not to allow partial successes, anyway.

> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> > Once we resolve those two, I expect to send framework,
> > ivr-control,  and  mixer-control
> > into IETF LC.
> >
> > RjS
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

Lorenzo Miniero
http://www.meetecho.com