RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model
"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> Tue, 29 November 2005 13:10 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eh5Fj-00023x-UC; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:10:35 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eh5Fh-00023h-K8 for xcon@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:10:33 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01572 for <xcon@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:09:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dx28.winwebhosting.com ([70.85.77.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eh5Zm-0002Zo-5r for xcon@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:31:18 -0500
Received: from neustargw.va.neustar.com ([209.173.53.233] helo=BROSENLT41XP) by dx28.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1Eh5FR-000545-K9; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:10:19 -0600
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: "'Even, Roni'" <roni.even@polycom.co.il>, 'XCON-IETF' <xcon@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:09:07 -0500
Message-ID: <020d01c5f4e6$17e20130$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C02C09F9C@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
Thread-Index: AcXrDusYTEtaXudcTdWVXYXWHE4kEwJPv0kwACUxk5A=
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dx28.winwebhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6ffdee8af20de249c24731d8414917d3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: br@brianrosen.net
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xcon-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org
As one who frequently opposes more than one way to do the same thing, I'd like to explore this subject a little. I hope we indeed do have consensus that there is an object, and the object represents the state of the conference. I don't hear anyone disputing that. We are discussing a protocol that directly manipulates this object. I hope that doing something like altering the mixing policy is done by the protocol, and that's the only way to do it. I do think we all agree that we need mechanisms for asynchronous notification of various kinds of conference events, and an event package is the way to do that if SIP is the protocol you are using to contact the conference server. I would not want our new conference control protocol to have its own asynchronous event notification mechanism. That leaves a gray area. The current conference package provides a way to "read" the current conference state. Another way to do that is to use the conference control package to read the object. This leads to the design decision of what is the way to determine the state of the conference: tickle the asynchronous event package to send you the conference object and look at it, or read it using the conference control package? After giving this some thought, my conclusion is that the conference package as it is presently constituted should just remain as it is. Any actual new asynchronous events we need should be defined in a new package that would only be implemented by endpoints that needed it and reading the conference object should be accomplished with the protocol. Let's take a specific example: what is the current state of my master volume control? Since I set it with the conference control protocol, if I want to get its current value, I think I should use the protocol to get it. On the other hand, if I want to know when Mary is in a sidebar (so that I could, for example, make the fact that she is probably not paying attention to the main conference visible by some kind of indicator on my screen), then I probably want an event package that gives me a way to find that out. It may well be that the event notification includes all or part of the conference object, so I do get some state with the event. That's okay, and I think it's a "part of the object", not the whole thing. I think that event is part of a new package, and is not part of, or an extension to, the current package. I think the entire object is too big to be sent on every event, and I don't want a simple endpoint to have to deal with all manner of new events we may decide we need. The way I see it, if you implement the control protocol, you probably will implement the event package that goes with it. Templates may define new state, and thus possibly new events. It's another design decision on how to implement a new event: define a new package with just the new events, define a new package which includes the events associated with the "common" part, or have an extension mechanism for an event package. I think the latter is a bad idea. As one who sees the template as including the common part, I'd probably be consistent and have a template defined package include any common events. Brian -----Original Message----- From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Even, Roni Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:54 AM To: XCON-IETF Subject: RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model As the one who made comments about the usage of the sipping-conferencing-package, I would like to clarify my comments. The XCON conferencing framework draft in section 5 "In a system based on this conferencing framework, the same conference object type is used for representation of a conference during different stages of a conference, such as expressing conferencing system capabilities, reserving conferencing resources or reflecting the state of ongoing conferences.". On the other hand the event package represents just the state of on going conference. The event package does not address the conference capabilities for example can the conference be extended, what is the mixing policy, can non specified users join the conference or is the conference access allowed only to users pre-defined by the creator. This is why I am not sure that the conference-info by itself or the extension suggested by Orit will be enough since the event package should just conveying the current state. Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:32 AM To: XCON-IETF Subject: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model [as chair] In Vancouver, there was considerable discussion around the XCON data model. There seemed to be considerable consensus around the position that we would use the XML schema defined in draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package-12 as the basis for the data model used in XCON. There was also a sentiment expressed that this schema needs additional elements added so that it can express all the information relevant to the data model we are defining in XCON. draft-novo-xcon-common-data-model-00 purports to be a starting point for defining such additional elements. This message is intended to (a) verify the consensus to use the conference event package as a starting point, and (b) spur discussion around what additional data items are necessary to make it complete for XCON's purposes. /a _______________________________________________ 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
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
- [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Mo… Adam Roach
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Orit Levin
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Jari Urpalainen
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Even, Roni
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Brian Rosen
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
- Re: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Adam Roach
- Re: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
- Re: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Dat… Henning Schulzrinne