Subject: RE: [Simple] Re: [XCON] "Many users in a single operation" Requirements

From: "Orit Levin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:29:01 -0800

XCAP was introduced and designed (as its name says: "XML Configuration
Access Protocol") as a LIGHT way CONFIGURATION protocol. As a result, by
design it doesn't address close-to-real-time dynamic data manipulations.
You can perform any rich atomic operation you need, but in order to do
so, you will need to be (preferably) the only owner of the data, to
upload the whole data sub-tree, change it locally, and then PUT it back.

I think it is a mistake to stretch XCAP functionality beyond this.
I think it is a mistake to position XCAP as the (only) protocol for all
kinds of dynamic operations neither for presence nor for conferencing.

Instead, I liked Jonathan's approach to his "XCAP drafts": 
"The documents are much less xcap-centric. They talk about document
formats, and have a small section at the end which defines the usage for
xcap. The title and filenames have also changed to reflect this. This
clarifies that these documents can be used outside of xcap."

I suggest that XCON group does the same for CPCP.

Thanks,
Orit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Orit Levin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Re: [XCON] "Many users in a single operation"
Requirements

[email-masked] wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 
>> We had discussed this particular limitation quite a bit during the
>>  design of xcap, and it was deemed an acceptable limitation. If it
>> is no longer the case, then we can discuss fixes.
> 
> 
> I think this all depends on what kind of usages we envision for XCAP.
> The requirement for doing multiple operations atomically was also
> originally included in the data manipulation reqs that were used as
> motivation for XCAP. However, it seemed that doing the actual
> applications that were in SIMPLE charter (mainly presence related)
> did not really need this capability.

Right. Though I fear that, in the future there will be more.

> 
> My opinion is that it should be added to XCAP if and only if: 1. It
> is mandatory for conference control (CPCP) according to the concensus
> in XCON WG 2. XCON WG chooses XCAP for CPCP's baseline given that
> XCAP can meet this requirement 3. XCAP would not be complicated or
> delayed considerably because of this
> 
> So far I haven't seen clarification on either 1. or 2. in XCON, but I
> think it would be a good target for the Korea meeting.

I would propose that I make a first stab at what such a feature might 
look like in the revision I will submit (probably at 8:58am est 
Monday...), and then we can discuss it with something concrete in hand.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:36:05 -0500

> design it doesn't address close-to-real-time dynamic data manipulations.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I add a buddy to my buddy list 
with xcap, that change happens in real time.

> upload the whole data sub-tree, change it locally, and then PUT it back.

XCAP most certainly allows multiple users to manipulate the data. It is 
not optimized for this case, no doubt, as the etag is over the entire 
document, so that two users manipulating separate parts will require 
each to syncrhonize on the changes made by the other before making their 
own change.

> kinds of dynamic operations neither for presence nor for conferencing.

dynamic operations? Can you clarify what you mean?

-Jonathan R.