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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Arjun - comments below.

	Paul

Arjun Roychowdhury wrote:
> 
> <pk>
> If you have a Conference URI, you can give it to all of your friends. Then
> when they call they will all be in the same conference together. But if
> you made a mistake and actually had a Conference Factory URI instead, you
> could still give it to all of your friends, and they could all call it,
> and each would end up in a conference. But they would each end up in a
> distinct conference by themself. So it is important to know which kind of
> URI you have.
> </pk>
> 
> I would disagree with the outcome you state of connecting to a Factory vs.
> the conference itself.
> Practically, as discussed, it is most likely that any conferencing server
> would host a 'FactoryURI'
> possibly of the form sip:[e-mail] and each individual
> conference would be something like
> sip:[e-mail].
> 
> That does not however mean that if you happen to distribute the factory
> URI, your friends would land
> up each in individual conferences. Most likely, they would land up in a
> prompt request/response
> that would provide options of joining a particular conference based on
> some ID or maybe even creating
> new conferences -> but all of this is policy.

My concept of Conference Factory URI is equivalent to what is called Focus URI in draft-johnston-sipping-cc-conferencing-00. Sending an invitation to this kind of URI is described in section 6.2 of that document. It would result in the situation I describe.

To get the kind of behavior you are suggesting would require what that document calls a General URI.

> 
> If we were to theoretically address this situation, then a job of a
> Factory is to produce new conferences
> and therefore, theoretically, an INVITE sent to a factory either creates
> or rejects.
> In practical scenarios, the 'FactoryURI' will actually be an 'entry point
> to a conferencing system'
> and therefore, what action is taken would be based on a multitude of
> policies, of which creating a new
> conference is one.
> 
> It may then be useful to properly define what we mean as a 'FactoryURI' ->
> assuming the fact
> that in a conferencing system, there is one 'general conference uri' and
> many 'specific conferenece uris'
> -> then from the point of implementation, is FocusFactoryURI really what
> is exposed to users ?

I believe the purpose in these drafts is to provide a taxonomy and definition of all the pieces potentially involved in conferencing solutions. In real situations not all of the pieces need be available or exposed.