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

Your question is slightly different that Brian's. Here is a copy paste from what I replied to Brian:

------------------
A long lived conference is one that runs for months (chat sessions on the internet seem to run for that long). They are not repeated, but instead are constantly running.

An administrator, for maintenance reasons, might want to de-activate a conference for a short period of time.
------------------------------

In this case, there is no difference in meaning when you say "stopping" or "deactivating" the conference. But since you are stopping the conference for a short period of time then restarting it again, and you do not want to affect the overall start and stop time of the conference, then you are really just making the conference inactive. Maybe inactive in the wrong word here. Maybe suspend is a better word. You are suspending the conference.

The other scenario is that the conference does not have to be running yet. Someone might schedule a conference starting Monday next week and stop 3 months from Monday. Moments later, the administrator decides that in 2 weekends time, he will suspend all running conferences. The administrator can immediately schedule such event before the meeting starts on Monday.

Brian was asking what the difference is between de-activating a conference and conference repeats. I guess you can think of as such, but it is not the same thing. Certainly the solution can incorporate both, but the 2 need to be recognised a separate requirements.

I hope what I state above answers his question (and your for that matter :)

Regards,
Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@lucent.com]
> Sent: 19.December.2003 16:43
> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP-MSW/Helsinki); Drage, Keith (Keith);
> Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> At the moment I was not trying to propose words, I was merely 
> trying to see how your inactive state was different from the 
> conference having been stopped.
> 
> So far you have been asked that question twice, once by me, 
> and once by someone else, and you have gone into statements 
> about side effects, but you have never actually answered the question.
> 
> So, is it a different state, or not?
> 
> Once we understand that, then we can look at the words.
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> Keith Drage
> Lucent Technologies
> drage@lucent.com
> tel: +44 1793 776249
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> > Sent: 19 December 2003 14:01
> > To: drage@lucent.com; Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; xcon@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> > 
> > 
> > You are getting into the solution already, so I take it that 
> > you agree that such a requirement is needed.
> > 
> > Having multiple start and stop times has the side effect that 
> > a conference policy will forever grow. In the solution we 
> > propose using XCAP, we have start-time, stop-time, and repeat 
> > intervals. Having multiple start and stop times where there 
> > is a repeat interval will cause unnecessary complexity.
> > 
> > To accommodate setting a long lived conference inactive to a 
> > short period of time, we have defined an inactive start and 
> > stop times.
> > 
> > I guess we can defer the argument about what the solution 
> > should look like until we agree on the requirement.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hisham
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: 19.December.2003 13:14
> > > To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP-MSW/Helsinki); Brian.Rosen@marconi.com;
> > > xcon@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You seem to be ending defining an inactivated conference due 
> > > to a lack of flexbility over start and stop times. What is to 
> > > stop you having multiple start and stop times that are 
> > > completely independent of regular scheduling?
> > > 
> > > If the conference them has a stop specified sometime in the 
> > > middle, and a subsequent restart, how is that different from 
> > > an inactivated conference?
> > > 
> > > regards
> > > 
> > > KeithKeith Drage
> > > Lucent Technologies
> > > drage@lucent.com
> > > tel: +44 1793 776249
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com 
> > [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> > > > Sent: 15 December 2003 15:21
> > > > To: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; xcon@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ext Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> > > > > Sent: 15.December.2003 16:25
> > > > > To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP-MSW/Helsinki); 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.
> > > > 
> > > > We can assume it is the moderator for now.
> > > > 
> > > > > What is an "inactivated" conference, and how does it 
> > differ from a
> > > > > conference that can be re-instantiated (a weekly meeting 
> > > > for example)?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > A long lived conference is one that runs for months (chat 
> > > > sessions on the internet seem to run for that long). They are 
> > > > not repeated, but instead are constantly running.
> > > > 
> > > > An administrator, for maintenance reasons, might want to 
> > > > de-activate a conference for a short period of time.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course the administrator can kick everyone out by sending 
> > > > them BYE requests and redefining the conference start time. 
> > > > But it has the disadvantage that the inactivity time for 
> > > > maintenance cannot be scheduled. Do we want to be able to 
> > > > schedule such event for long lived conferences?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Hisham
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > XCON mailing list
> > XCON@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > 
> 

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