Subject: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-uri-00

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:24:31 -0600

Per discussions at IETF-67, here's the reminder that we'd like feedback
on this draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-xcon-uri-00.txt

This document defines a URI scheme and syntax for the conference object
identifier, as defined in "A Framework and Data Model for Centralized
Conferencing".

This identifier has been a fundamental concept in the XCON framework
from the beginning and seems quite necessary. I think this draft is
fairly complete and the identifier itself is already part of the data
model, as pointed out by Oscar.   

So, the questions would be how much more detail is necessary in this
document and can it be accepted as a WG document?

Regards,
Mary

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

xm1.corp.nortel.com>
From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-uri-00

Per discussions at IETF-67, here's the reminder that we'd like feedback
on this draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-xcon-uri-00.txt

This document defines a URI scheme and syntax for the conference object
identifier, as defined in "A Framework and Data Model for Centralized
Conferencing".

This identifier has been a fundamental concept in the XCON framework
from the beginning and seems quite necessary. I think this draft is
fairly complete and the identifier itself is already part of the data
model, as pointed out by Oscar.   

So, the questions would be how much more detail is necessary in this
document and can it be accepted as a WG document?

Regards,
Mary

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

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:57:21 +0100

Hi Mary,

> document and can it be accepted as a WG document?

I absolutely agree on the fact that such an identifier was needed in the 
framework, and I'm glad that it has been proposed. What I still don't 
understand after having the draft read, and I take advantage of this new 
draft proposal to repeat a question I made some weeks ago on this ML and 
got ignored: considering the conference joining matter, will this URI be 
directly used to join conferences using a message of the 
soon-to-come-CCP, or will only its unique token be used to compose 
signaling URIs to access conferences using the relative CSP (e.g. 
xcon:123@xxx --> sip:123@xxx)?
I ask this since I consider the joining method matter very important in 
a framework that by definition will (should?) not depend upon a specific 
CSP for media, besides the fact that a running XCON conference could be 
text-only as well, which would make a CSP almost useless. I personally 
think (and I ask the opinion of you all about that) that it could very 
well be a message of the CCP, which would allow an user to join the 
conference as an 'abstract' 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 CSP (accessing 
the URIs as mapped in this draft), or with some resource always 
available by default upon joining (text, for example) and others that 
can be latterly requested and accessed.

Hope to hear from 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]