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

["Even, Roni" <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
email:[e-mail]
*******************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:14 PM
To: 'Even, Roni'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:22 AM
To: 'Rosen, Brian'; '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
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: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
email:[e-mail]
*******************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:25 PM
To: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:57 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> 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
> [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