Subject: [XCON] New version of CSCP draft

From: "Oscar Novo \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:46:20 +0100

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:53:09 -0800

(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:[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:05:37 -0600

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 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 
>>CSCP draft with the "Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)" draft and 
>>the "Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control 
>Protocol (BFCP)"
>>draft.
>>
>>- 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 of new operations (creation of a conference, termination 
>>of a conference, etc...)
>>- CSCP is based on BFCP, reducing the number of protocols required to 
>>be supported by clients

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:42:18 +0200

Alan,

> protocol on many of the conference participant devices.  

Could you summarize the reasons why the XCAP-based approach was 
abandoned in the first place?

Thanks,

Gonzalo