Re: [SIPPING] question on draft-johnston-sipping-cc-conferencing-00.txt

[Michael Hammer <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan,

Perhaps, I am misreading this or being mislead by the diagrams.  In Figure 
2, Alice is creating the conference, and in Figure 3, Carol is joining a 
conference in progress.  My understanding is that the value represented by 
"Conf-ID" is identical in these two figures.  Could you explain to me where 
the difference lies?

Mike


Figure 2:

      Alice                Focus                 Bob                Carol
        |                    |                    |                    |
        | Alice creates the conference and chooses the conference URI. 
|
        |                    |                    |                    |
        | INVITE sip:Conf-ID F1                   |                    |
        |------------------->|                    |                    |
        |   180 Ringing F2   |                    |                    |
        |<-------------------|                    |                    |
        |   200 OK Contact:Conf-ID;isFocus F3     |                    |
        |<-------------------|                    |                    |
        |        ACK F4      |                    |                    |
        |------------------->|                    |                    |


Figure 3:

      Alice                Focus                 Bob                Carol
        |                    |                                         |
        |<==================>|                                         |
        |                    |    Carol "dials in" to the conference   |
        |                    |                                         |
        |                    |              INVITE sip:Conf-ID F1      |
        |                    |<----------------------------------------|
        |                    |               180 Ringing F2            |
        |                    |---------------------------------------->| 

        |                    |     200 OK Contact:Conf-ID;isFocus 
F3   |
        |                    |---------------------------------------->| 

        |                    |                   ACK F4                |
        |                    |<----------------------------------------| 



At 03:40 PM 11/5/2002 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:


>Michael Hammer wrote:
>>In this draft the creating of a new conference and the joining of an 
>>existing conference appear identical.  Given that conference servers may 
>>host many conferences, and given that collision of selected identifiers 
>>could occur, is there any way for a user to indicate that they wish to 
>>connect to an existing conference versus creating a new one?
>
>The draft proposes two separate URIs for creating a new conference, and 
>joining an existing one. Therefore, a UA would indicate which case they 
>desire by using the appropriate URI. THis presumes that there is some 
>other means for propagatign those URIs. I believe the genreal model is 
>that the "Conference factory URI" - used for creating conferences - would 
>be learned through configuration. THe conference URI itself would be 
>handed out as a result of sending an INVITE to the conference factory URI. 
>You could also get one through email, IM, web links, etc., in which case 
>the context is provided to the user - "click here to JOIN the conference".
>
>
>>A value such as "isnew" or "existing" could also permit, in the first 
>>case, an error indicating that a conference by that name already exists, 
>>or in the second case, an error indicating that a conference by that name 
>>does not exist.
>
>In the case of creation, the client does not provide the conference URI, 
>it is given the conference URI by the server. So, there can never be 
>collisions. In terms of trying to join a conference that doesnt exist - 
>well, we have an error for that. Its 404 (Not Found).
>
>
>>The presumption is that you do not want to interrupt an existing 
>>conference already in progress (case 1) or you do not want to create a 
>>conference (and pay corresponding charges) as an invitee if the invitor 
>>is not present (case 2).
>>Is such a protection covered elsewhere in another draft?
>
>I dont think its needed. As above, the intent is encoded in the URI which 
>is used...
>
>-Jonathan R.
>
>--
>Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
>Chief Scientist                             First Floor
>dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
>[e-mail]                     FAX:   [phone]
>http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: [phone]
>http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP