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

From: "Oscar Novo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:35:13 +0100

Thanks Avshalom for your target review. 
If the rest of reviewers are fast enough and you can check if all your
comments are addressed, I can create a new version of the draft if some
modification is needed before the cut-off.
 
Thanks,
 
Oscar

________________________________

From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 30. lokakuuta 2007 11:24
To: Adam Roach
Cc: alan johnston; Ben Campbell; Mary Barnes; Miguel-Angel Garcia; Oscar
Novo; Srivatsa Srinivasan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [XCON] New version of the Conference Information Data Model
-06-

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:

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:
>
> 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-0
6.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
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon> 

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

---

From: Srivatsa Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:55:08 -0800

Oscar et. Al

I have reviewed this draft and most of my earlier comments have been addressed. Those comments that have not been addressed in full are not critical enough to warrant a rewrite. I noticed that the state attributes have been removed from this version and will now be defined in the event package extensions draft. This makes this draft MUCH cleaner, thank you!

Couple of minor nits follow (none of which require a rewrite).

The first one is in section 4.5.4 is -- conference-floor-policy is defined as a mandatory element, however, the tree diagram does not show this as mandatory.

The second one is in Section 6 titled "XML Schema Extensibility".

"The

   IETF MAY extend the data model schema with extension elements from

   the same namespace, but other instances are free to extend it from

   other than urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xcon-conference-info."

This should be corrected to read as follows.

"The

   IETF MAY extend the data model schema with extension elements from

   the same namespace in future. Other instances are free to define extension elements under any namespace other than urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xcon-conference-info."

Regards,
Srivatsa.

From: Oscar Novo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [XCON] New version of the Conference Information Data Model -06-

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.

Cheers,

Oscar

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:54:29 -0600

I re-reviewed the document, in particular the comments and nits I had
previously noted.  All the nits I had identified have been addressed.
There are a few new nits I noticed and I have one remaining comment
related to my previous comments.

Comment:
--------
The one remaining comment is around the roles related to my previous
comment on the 2nd paragraph in section 3.2.  My previous comment had
been primarily around the text in the 2nd paragraph which had some
inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the framework.  

Per your past response to my comments that entire section discussing the
roles was to be removed. However, the concept of role remains and it's
definition has changed to "text" from the base "role-type" (Note that
the "single-role-type" is still defined in the schema).  The  "role"
element is used in the examples based on the previously defined types
and the introductory text in section 7 refers to those previously
defined types. I see that the reference for "roles" in section 4.6.4.4
is RFC 4575, however, that document doesn't give any information at all
about those types and just mentions that they'll be defined in the
future. I think this document should define them. 

I can see that the text in the -05 and previous versions of this
document was based on the draft specifically on roles:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morgan-xcon-roles-00 So, I don't think
we need a separate document. At a minimum, I would suggest just taking
some of that previous text in 3.2 and putting it in section 4.6.4.4.
something like:

   This <roles> child element consists of a set of the following string
values: 
   "administrator", "creator", "moderator", "participant", and
"observer".  
   A user with the role of "administrator" typically SHOULD be allowed
to make changes 
   to all conference variables during the full lifecycle of the
Conference Object. 
   A user with the role  of "creator" SHOULD be allowed to modify
specific conference
   variables, subject to local policy, of a conference reservation and
an active conference.  
   A user with the role of  "moderator" has specific privileges, subject
to local policy, 
   that allow them to manipulate specific conference variables such as
adding new users 
   to an active conference or controlling  when the media for a
conference. A user with a 
   role of "participant" typically is not allowed to modify conference
variables other than those
   specific to the user's own media (e.g., "mute") or participation. A
user with a role of 
   "observer" typically can only receive media streams from the
conference.

   Each user participating in a conference instance is an entity that
   can assume one or more roles.  If no roles are defined for an entity,
they SHOULD 
   by default be a "participant" but local policy MAY define an
alternative.
   A Conference System MAY not support all roles.  As well, additional
roles may be defined 
   in the future, as necessary, with their corresponding schema
extensions.

Nits:
-----
1) Section 3.3/Section 9.3: "XCON-URI" is used in section 3.3., but the
IANA registry uses "XCON_URI"

2) Section 3.3, Figure 2: for some reason the bottom of the box for BFCP
is skewed in the text version of the doc - it's fine in the HTML
version.

3) Section 4.6.2. Expand PSTN (I noticed this only because I was
double-checking the global changes of PSTN => ISUP, etc.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Oscar Novo
Cc: [email-masked]; Miguel-Angel Garcia; Avshalom Houri; Ben Campbell;
Srivatsa Srinivasan; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); alan johnston
Subject: Re: [XCON] New version of the Conference Information Data Model
-06-

Dedicated Reviewers:

/a

[as chair]

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:56:38 -0600

I apologize for the lateness of this re-review--It's been an  
exceptionally busy couple of weeks.

Most of my comments have been addressed, or were really not important  
enough to worry about. There is still one nit that does not appear to  
be addressed, and I have a new concern that I failed to discover the  
first time:

IANA Considerations:

This section seems lightweight compared to what I usually expect to  
see. It has nice syntax definitions, but unless I am missing  
something, doesn't offer specific instructions to IANA about what to  
do with the definitions; i.e. what registries they go in, etc.  
Furthermore, if the section on the XCON_URI is intended to register  
the URI scheme, it does not follow the procedures for doing so as I  
understand them.

Remaining nit:

Page 17, <video-layout> bullet, end of paragraph:

"The <layout> types are...": Unless I am missing something, I can find  
no definition for a <layout> element. Perhaps this was meant to be  
<video-layout>, or perhaps the word layout was not intended to be in  
angle-brackets?

On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Adam Roach wrote:

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