Subject: [XCON] New version of the Conference Information Data Model -06-

From: "Oscar Novo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:00:01 +0100

Hello,

You can find a new version of the Conference Information Data Model at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-06
.txt

In this version, we try to solve all the issues and clarifications of
the five dedicated reviewers selected in the last meeting. You can find
the reviews in the XCON mailing list. Here you have the links:

Miguel's review:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02025.html

Avshalom's review: 

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02026.html

Ben's review:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02027.html

Srivatsa's review:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02028.html

Mary Barne's review:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02029.html

As well, we try to solve the open issues discuss in the IETF 69. You can
find the discussion in the minutes draft:

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/xcon.txt

This version has quiet many changes compared to the previous version
(relax ng, structure of the document, security considerations, ...).
Here, we only try to summarized the three major changes/problems in this
version of the document:

- We have removed the roles from the document since we believe is much
better to define the roles and their definition in a future policy
document. Many of the reviewers have some concerns about the roles
chapter and we could see the definition of roles is not enough mature to
add it in the data model.

-  Few reviewers didn't like the idea to have a refer method in the
<allowed-users-list>, the initial concern is that this element is
overloaded. We have decided to keep this element because in the IETF-60
meeting it was a consensus that a separate refer list was needed, mainly
because the list is not a list of users that the focus invites to join
the conference (dial-out list). Of course, we can discusses again this
point and if the working group feels it's appropriate to remove this
element from the data model we can do so in the next version.

- As it was decided in the IETF-69 we have collapsed all the sub-element
of <conf-uris> and <services-uris> into a single one.
 
Not need to mention that all your comments are very welcome!

Cheers,

Oscar 

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

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:18:33 -0500

Dedicated Reviewers:

Please perform a targeted review of the revised data model, focusing on 
ensuring that your concerns have been addressed. Please respond to me 
and Alan with an estimated date by which you believe you can complete 
this review. (I anticipate that such re-reviews will take a minimum 
amount of time, and request that they be performed this week, if at all 
possible).

After all five reviewers have completed their re-review, we will enter a 
two-week working group last call period.

The plan is to have publication requested prior to our face-to-face 
meeting in Vancouver, allowing us to concentrate on the event package 
and protocol operations.

Thanks to the data model authors for the new revision, and again to the 
dedicated reviewers for their efforts in improving the document.

/a

[as chair]

On 10/29/07 5:00 AM, Oscar Novo wrote:
> _http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-06.txt_ 
>
>
> the five dedicated reviewers selected in the last meeting. You can 
> find the reviews in the XCON mailing list. Here you have the links:
>
> Miguel's review:
>
> _http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02025.html_
>
> Avshalom's review:
>
> _http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02026.html_
>
> Ben's review:
>
> _http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02027.html_
>
> Srivatsa's review:
>
> _http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02028.html_
>
> Mary Barne's review:
>
> _http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02029.html_
>
> As well, we try to solve the open issues discuss in the IETF 69. You 
> can find the discussion in the minutes draft:
>
> _http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/xcon.txt_
>
>
> Here, we only try to summarized the three major changes/problems in 
> this version of the document:
>
> chapter and we could see the definition of roles is not enough mature 
> to add it in the data model.
>
> overloaded. We have decided to keep this element because in the 
> IETF-60 meeting it was a consensus that a separate refer list was 
> needed, mainly because the list is not a list of users that the focus 
> invites to join the conference (dial-out list). Of course, we can 
> discusses again this point and if the working group feels it's 
> appropriate to remove this element from the data model we can do so in 
> the next version.
>
> - As it was decided in the IETF-69 we have collapsed all the 
> sub-element of <conf-uris> and <services-uris> into a single one.
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:23:50 +0200

I have done re-review (checking if my comments were addressed) and all my 
comments were addressed.

--Avshalom

Adam Roach <[email-masked]> 
29/10/2007 18:18

To
Oscar Novo <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked], Miguel-Angel Garcia <[email-masked]>, Avshalom 
Houri/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>, Srivatsa Srinivasan 
<[email-masked]>, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>, alan 
johnston <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [XCON] New version of the Conference Information Data Model -06-

Dedicated Reviewers:

/a

[as chair]