RE: [XCON] New version of CSCP draft

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

I agree with Alan on his comments relating to CSCP. I had sent similar
comments earlier in (March) to the mailing list. It would be helpful to
have some example messages (like to which entity - the floor control
server or the focus etc) the requests are directed to and how they
change the XML. Locking mechanism if required needs to be discussed in
the draft.

BR

Umesh 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>Behalf Of ext Alan Johnston
>Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:53 AM
>To: Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
>Cc: Cullen Jennings; Adam Roach; XCON-IETF; Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF)
>Subject: Re: [XCON] New version of CSCP draft
>
>(not as chair)
>
>There are two areas that I would find useful to be discussed, 
>either in the draft or on the list that may help me and others 
>in evaluating this proposal.
>
>First, while I undestand how the protocol can be used to 
>change a single value (mute a line, change a display name, 
>etc.)  to me it is not at all clear how a conference could be 
>created, or a new user added as a dial out participant.  Could 
>you show the sequence of messages needed to obtain this.
>
>Secondly, this approach seems to essentially be a data 
>manipulation approach.  As such, the question of why XCAP is 
>not used is important, as XCAP is nearly finished and will 
>likely be already implemented as a protocol on many of the 
>conference participant devices.  Also, are the document 
>locking capabilities of XCAP needed?  If not, some advice for 
>implementors on how to resolve conflicts in large conferences.
>
>Thanks,
>Alan Johnston
>sip:[e-mail]
>
>Oscar Novo (JO/LMF) wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>We would like to notify the new version of the CSCP draft. Until it 
>>appears in the archives, you can fetch it from:
>>
>>http://users.piuha.net/gonzalo/temp/draft-jennings-xcon-cscp-02.txt
>>
>>CSCP is an extension of the BFCP. In this version we have aligned the 
>>CSCP draft with the "Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)" draft and 
>>the "Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control 
>Protocol (BFCP)"
>>draft.
>>
>>Here's an overall summary of the changes:
>>
>>- We have aligned the CSCP draft with the "Binary Floor Control 
>>Protocol (BFCP)" draft and the "Connection Establishment in 
>the Binary 
>>Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)" draft
>>- Definition and explanation of the main errors of the CSCP protocol.
>>- Added a new section 6 (Server Behaviour)
>>- In Section 7 (example) added a new example and additional text 
>>explaining the example
>>- Updated sections 9 (IANA Considerations) and section 10 (Security
>>Considerations)
>>
>>CSCP is not done yet. There are changes that have to be 
>incorporated in 
>>the following versions:
>>
>>- Definition of new operations (creation of a conference, termination 
>>of a conference, etc...)
>>- Definition of new error values of the protocol
>>- Better explanation of some operations (Adding Elements, etc...)
>>- Discussion about the need of the synchronous "query" 
>mechanism in the 
>>protocol
>>
>>But we believe it's enough to understand the propose of this protocol 
>>and to discuss in the mailing list if this protocol is a good option.
>>
>>The strengths of CSCP are:
>>
>>- CSCP is based on BFCP, reducing the number of protocols required to 
>>be supported by clients
>>- It can modify the "variable" part data and the "common" part data 
>>using the same operations.
>>- Easy to implement
>>- Compact and Efficient
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Oscar
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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