Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Draft Minutes

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:39:45 -0400

Draft minutes are at:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/mediactrl.txt

Transcript is at:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/mediactrl/2007-03-22.html

Thanks to Steve and Spencer for taking notes and to Shida for Jabbering.

Please send comments to me (or list) by 6 April.

Thanks.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

---

From: Raphael Coeffic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:37:09 +0200

Hello Eric,

i can remember that we talked about removing the last requirement about markup 
language, as it is part of the solution (at least conceptually) and not of 
the requirements. In the transcript, i can see it said by "frederick", which 
seems to be a contraction of my name.

I understand that a lot of people have XML protocols running, but i do not 
understand why the requirement document is bound to XML. To my opinion, this 
is something which is better done in the framework document. This way, there 
could be some place for other proposals.

I would be very happy to read some comments from the list on that matter.

Regards
Raphael.

On Tuesday 27 March 2007 17:39, Eric Burger wrote:
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and
> have received this message in error, please immediately return this by
> email and then delete it.
>

-- 
Dipl. Inf. Raphael Coeffic

iptelorg GmbH
Am Borsigturm 11
13507 Berlin
Germany

[email-masked]
www.iptelorg.com

T +49-30-3251-3218
F +49-30-6908-8248

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:16 +0200

A "SHOULD" instead of "WILL" for XML in the requirements would then 
probably make happy anyone, IMHO. XML would be the suggested approach, 
thus leaving, as you point out, space for alternative proposals.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, Junior Researcher
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
Phone: +390817683821 - Fax: +390817683816
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:51:39 +0200

Hi Eric,

just a small note upon my question during the meeting, since I think 
neither the minutes nor the transcript address it well and interested 
readers could be confused; besides, Roni's answer isn't reported either.

My concern was addressed in a post on this ML 
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl/current/msg00000.html), 
and was about where should BFCP be. My opinion is that it should be 
between the participants and the AS, and thus be part of the "XCON 
protocols" as seen on Roni's slides in Prague, be it colocating AS-FCS, 
be it having them as separate boxes interacting with each other. This 
way the AS could appropriately "orchestrate" and/or trigger the right 
component according to the set of resources associated with a floor, 
i.e. the MS in case floors are associated with audio and/or video, or 
other components in case resources are related to IM, whiteboarding or 
whatever else.

Roni replied by rightly pointing out that there's an extension of 
H.249.19 (as you can read on 
http://www.ubiquitysoftware.com/archives/200608/msg00003.html, where the 
extension is attached FYI) to support floor control on the MRFP, 
particularly useful when wanting, for example, to automatically grant 
floors to the requestors without specific policies. This could mean 
separating the Floor Control Server and the Floor Policy Management, by 
having the first colocated with the MS and the latter with the AS.
While I think this approach has its advantages, I still prefer the 
AS-FCS approach, by having the Floor Control Server and Floor Policy 
Management colocated. While the FCS would have no policy management, it 
still would need to know about all currently managed floors (e.g. to 
check if a floor exists in a conference) and the basic policies upon 
them (e.g. to check if a participant has reached the maximum number of 
allowed requests for a specific floor). Besides, having the FCS 
colocated with the MS would mean additional channels to be handled by 
the MS, that would be taken at the expenses of SIP and RTP ones. 
Nonetheless, the latest is probably a minor issue that could be solved 
with the appropriate architecture.

However, though my point of view seems to be reflected in the Conference 
Control Package for the SIP Control Framework, as Chris pointed out in 
one of the replies on the ML the logical role of the BFCP allows both 
approaches to be exploited and neither be prohibited, and I'm absolutely 
fine with this.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:06:11 -0400

Absolutely.  I think the consensus (sorry Scott) is to either drop the
requirement or simply note it as a preference.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:08:03 -0400

Start the thread here.

Question for the Work Group: do we need to work on this?  Will we be able to
meet all of XCON's requirements with BFCP terminating at the AS?

On 3/28/07 5:51 AM, "Lorenzo Miniero" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have
>> received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and
>> then delete it.
>>

---

From: "McGlashan, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:52:04 +0200

Agreed - I'd go with with Lorenzo's suggestion to keep it in, but weaken
it: 

<quote>

</quote>

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 15:06
To: Raphael Coeffic; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Draft Minutes

On 3/28/07 4:37 AM, "Raphael Coeffic" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello Eric,
> 
> i can remember that we talked about removing the last requirement 
> about markup language, as it is part of the solution (at least 
> conceptually) and not of the requirements. In the transcript, i can 
> see it said by "frederick", which seems to be a contraction of my
name.
> 
> I understand that a lot of people have XML protocols running, but i do

> not understand why the requirement document is bound to XML. To my 
> opinion, this is something which is better done in the framework 
> document. This way, there could be some place for other proposals.
> 
>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may 
>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  
>> affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  
>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for 
>> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are

>> not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, 
>> please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>> 

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:55:46 -0400

Love it.