Subject: [XCON] Some doubts

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:32:32 +0100

Hi,

this are a couple of doubts I've been having for some time already.

First, even if such a question could be considered premature considering 
the current state of the framework itself: how do we want to really have 
conferences joined in XCON? For ad-hoc conferences, the scenarios draft 
presents the example of calling a specific URI to join a conference 
(which is what we did too for the Confiance demo, a phone number 
associated to a conference), but I'd actually prefer it to be a method 
of the CCP, by accessing an xcon uri as proposed by Mary at the meeting, 
for example: a method that would allow an user to join the conference as 
an object, with no set of resources accessed yet (e.g. still no 
audio/video/text/etc) until the user states its will to access one or 
more of them by means of the respective signaling protocol, or with some 
resource always available by default upon joining (text, for example) 
and others that have to be requested.

I have another doubt partially related to the join one: we still have 
not decided yet how we want BFCP information notified to the participant 
that has just joined a conference and/or wants to access a moderated 
resource. For the Confiance demo we implemented the SDP+BFCP feature, 
which actually works, but so far requires the client to use SIP as 
signaling protocol, besides requiring non-standard extensions to it. 
While it will probably work like a charm in SIP-related contexts (e.g. 
the Call Completion Service through BFCP proposed by Adam in SIPPING, 
which I consider an excellent proposal), I personally don't like to the 
idea of forcely having SIP and the like everywhere in this WG, mostly 
considering how the XCON framework has been conceived, that is allowing 
participants to use various signaling protocols of any kind. Besides, 
the SDP+BFCP wouldn't probably cover the case of non-typical moderated 
resources as whiteboards, file-sharing, shared desktops and so on, 
unless there are ways to access them through SIP extensions too, which I 
frankly don't know. Again, as for the Join, I think that also exchange 
of BFCP information should be managed through what will be our CCP: the 
Floor Control Server policies for each conference will almost surely be 
managed just through the CCP (since they appear in  the current Data 
Model and the BFCP specification explicitely states that how the 
policies are defined is not in its scope), so why don't we plan to add 
the exchange of BFCP info there too? An objection could probaby be that 
this would be an ad-hoc solution for XCON, that wouldn't be suitable for 
the use of BFCP in other scenarios and frameworks...

What do you think about it? I hope my considerations were not related to 
already discussed or taken for granted matters, in which case I apologize.

Hope to hear you soon, 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]

-- 
Il messaggio e' stato analizzato alla ricerca di virus o
contenuti pericolosi da MailScanner, ed e'
risultato non infetto.

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