RE: URGENT REMINDER: [XCON] Conference Control: Path Forward

["Sean Olson" <[e-mail]>]

I haven't seen any discussion so far about the protocol submissions:

- Henning's SOAP proposal
(http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/comp/draft-schulzrinne-xcon-comp-0
0.html) 

- Cullen/Oscar's CSCP proposal
(http://users.piuha.net/gonzalo/temp/draft-jennings-xcon-cscp-02.txt)

- Our CCCP proposal
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/xcon/draft-levin-xcon-cccp-04.txt)

What are the next steps for evaluating these submissions?

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:22 PM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: XCON-IETF
Subject: URGENT REMINDER: [XCON] Conference Control: Path Forward

[as chair]

If anyone in the working group cares about the protocol we end up
selecting for conference control -- or, indeed, finishing our work at
all -- they are strongly advised to participate in this conversation. If
we can't get any participation around our deliverables, we really have
no choice but to shut the working group down.

/a

Adam Roach wrote:

> [as chair]
>
> In Vancouver, the XCON chairs outlined a process by which we would 
> attempt to meet our proposed milestones. This message summarizes that 
> process, as amended by the input we received from the XCON
participants.
>
>   1. Proposals for candidates for the Conference Control Protocol
(CCP)
>      must be submitted in internet-draft format no later than December
>      31st, 2005. The draft does not need to be complete; however,
there
>      must be sufficient detail to make clear how the proposed protocol
>      would be used to modify information in both the Common Conference
>      Information and Conference Template. (See
>      draft-ietf-xcon-framework for definitions).
>
>   2. All protocols to be considered additionally need a brief message
>      from an author and/or proponent of the corresponding draft that
>      explains the design decisions taken in the design of the
protocol,
>      as well as a summary of strengths and drawbacks of the approach.
>      Such proponents should contact the XCON chairs to coordinate.
>          * Such proponents should discuss implementation lessons, if
>            available, around using their proposed protocol to modify
>            the Common Conference Information.
>          * Separately, such proponents should additionally discuss
>            implementation lessons, if available, around using their
>            proposed protocol to modify the Conference Template.
>
>   3. Starting in early January, the chairs will call for discussion on
>      the mailing list to gauge the overall direction the working group
>      wishes to proceed.
>
>   4. Between now and January, interested parties should discuss their
>      requirements around the CCP on the mailing list. These
discussions
>      should assist in coming to consensus on the CCP that XCON will
use.
>
> Hopefully, the result of the January discussions will resolve to a 
> single approach (either by selection of one of the proposals or by 
> combining one or more of them into a unified proposal).
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>


_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon