RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference

I agree with Brian.

Petri

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext
> Rosen, Brian
> Sent: 06 January, 2004 16:47
> To: 'Even, Roni'
> Cc: Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP/Helsinki); xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> Clearly, xcon can only address the "equipment" part of the problem.
> 
> What is wrong with making the start time in the future?  I think it is
> quite sufficient.  The actual mechanism the focus uses to maintain
> resource reservation is beyond scope, but the actual reservation seems
> to be simple.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:23 AM
> To: 'Rosen, Brian'; Even, Roni
> Cc: 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> Brian,
> So you see the focus as managing reservation, this means we 
> have to go back
> to the framework document and decide how to handle 
> reservation. I did not
> see the requirement to have it as part of the conferencing 
> architecture
> since it does not apply only to conferencing. Reservation is 
> a general topic
> that address also the conference rooms, the people and the 
> equipment. That
> is why I think it is outside of the conferencing architecture
> Roni Even
> 
> *************************************
> Roni Even
> 
> Polycom Israel
> 
> Tel: +972-3-9251200
> Cell: +972-55-481099
> email:roni.even@polycom.co.il
> *******************************************
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:14 PM
> To: 'Even, Roni'
> Cc: 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> I don't like this idea because I think that we need a 
> standardized interface
> for scheduling and "external application server" sounds very 
> proprietary to
> me.  I guess I could be convinced we need a separate interface, with a
> separate protocol (maybe it could be iCal), but I'm not yet convinced
> just specifying a start time in the future isn't a sufficient 
> reservation
> mechanism.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:22 AM
> To: 'Rosen, Brian'; 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> Brian,
> My suggestion is not to have reservation in the conference policy. The
> conference policy is used by the focus according to the 
> conference framework
> and the focus is not the place for handling reservation. I think that
> reservation is handled by an external application server that 
> will start the
> conference using CPCP at the time when the conference 
> scheduled time has
> arrived. The focus may use the conference duration 
> information in order to
> notify the participants that it the conference end-time is coming and
> terminate the conference. Extension of the should be done 
> using CPCP either
> by the participant or an application server.
> Roni
> 
> *************************************
> Roni Even
> VP Product Planning
> Polycom Israel
> 
> Tel: +972-3-9251200
> Cell: +972-55-481099
> email:roni.even@polycom.co.il
> *******************************************
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> Again, I'm worried about "privileged users".  I think we need 
> to finish
> some discussions we started a while ago that essentially are 
> semantics.
> What is an "inactivated" conference, and how does it differ from a
> conference that can be re-instantiated (a weekly meeting for example)?
> 
> Brian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:57 AM
> > To: xcon@ietf.org
> > Subject: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> > 
> > 
> > This is in reference to requirement REQ-B9 in 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-cpcp-reqs-00.txt
> > 
> >    REQ-B9: It MUST be possible to inactive a conference for defined
> >    period of time.
> > 
> > There are start and stop times for a conference. A conference 
> > might live for days, weeks or even months. Should a 
> > conference policy, using CPCP, allow a privileged user to 
> > de-activate a conference for a period of time within the 
> > start and stop times of a conference? Examples are 
> > administrator is performing some maintenance.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hisham
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon