RE: [XCON] CPCP requirements to support IMS

[hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]

The issue I have is that we at least need to know the media to be used in the conference (audio, video, text), to enable the server to reserve resources and to enable the focus to include/exclude certain media from the INVITEs SDP it sends out to the dial-out list, and also enables the focus to reject the media streams in the SDP of INVITE request coming from dial-in participants.

I don't think in the basic media policy needs to define what the codecs to be used are, this can be a normal offer answer exchange between the client and the server.

This is a basic requirement and enables CPCP to work without the complicated media policy. If the people working on the media policy could work on a basic one like this, it would be great. We can then work on an advanced media policy as a second step.

Regards,
Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext
> Adam Roach
> Sent: 11.December.2003 23:40
> To: Koskelainen Petri (NRC/Tampere); xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP requirements to support IMS
> 
> 
> [as chair]
> 
> petri.koskelainen@nokia.com 
> [mailto:petri.koskelainen@nokia.com] wrote:
> 
> > I'm a bit worried about media policy-CPCP integration 
> > and WG schedule regarding it.
> > 
> > Currently the charter says the following:
> > May 04  Submit Membership Manipulation Protocol for 
> publication as PS 
> > Jul 04  Submit Protocol for Media Topology Control for publication
> > 
> > What I would like to have by May 04 is CPCP with the ability 
> > to set up typical real-life conference, e.g. with audio codec X and
> > centralized mixer. 
> ...
> > Current media policy seems to be extremely complex and the RFC goal 
> > is not until July.
> > 
> > Georg can probably comment on 3GPP schedules but in any case, 
> > should we adopt simple media definition in CPCP itself (or divide
> > media policy into basic and advanced parts so basic media policy 
> > could be ready by May 04)?
> 
> Media policy was pushed to July precisely because it is more complex
> and (at this point, at least) more contentious.
> 
> I fear that diverting resources to getting a bare-bones media policy
> out the door early will only cause significant delays to not just
> advanced media policy, but to all of our deliverables. That seems
> a steep price to pay for a two-month advance on publication.
> 
> Hopefully, by the time the membership manipulation document is ready
> for publication, the media policy draft will be stable enough to give
> you a basis to start implementation.
> 
> What is important to keep in mind is that we are not performing these
> tasks serially. The documents should develop pretty much in parallel.
> 
> /a
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon