RE: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than one!

["Orit Levin" <oritl@microsoft.com>]

In the SIP conference package, the participant URIs are opaque URIs. -
It fits Eric's view.

Should the conference package include different kinds of "Conference
URIs" - is a more difficult question. Let's say we do, how are they
going to be used by the recipient of the event information?

In order to answer this question we need to provide answers to the
following first:

- Do we envision that other than SIP entities are going to subscribe to
the SIP conference package?
- Will XCON rely on the SIP conference package exclusively to supply all
the basic events information about a conference?

Orit.



-----Original Message-----
From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Burger
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:24 PM
To: Even, Roni
Cc: xcon@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than one!

Would I be interpreting this statement correctly
     "but the SIP conferencing package should be for SIP addresses"
to mean that the SIP conferencing package only includes SIP stuff?

Consider a multi-protocol conference bridge that has four users.  A, B,
and C use SIP while D uses H.323.

A, B, and C subscribe to the SIP conferencing package, being conference
aware.

Do they know about D?  D does not have a SIP address.


What D does have is a URL.

I would propose that if anything changes, it is that the packages (and
XCON, too) just refer to URI's.  We should not place any restriction on
URI scheme.  They are opaque objects.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il]
> Sent: Fri, December 05, 2003 12:53 PM
> To: 'Orit Levin '; 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com '; 
> 'Brian.Rosen@marconi.com '; 'xcon@ietf.org '
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than 
> one!
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I think that Brian's point is very important. As for the SIP 
> conference package, I think that the information in the XCON CPCP may 
> support many call setup protocols (SP, H.323, H.320, PSTN) but the SIP

> conferencing package should be for SIP addresses.
> Roni Even
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orit Levin
> To: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com; Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; xcon@ietf.org
> Sent: 05/12/2003 01:26
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than 
> one!
> 
> Yes, a conference can have a list of URI identifiers and the CPCP 
> needs to reflect it.
> 
> My question is: Would we like to reflect this fact in the SIP 
> Conference Package as well? (At least - as an optional structure :-)
> 
> Orit. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> hisham.khartabil@nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:35 AM
> To: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than 
> one!
> 
> Brian,
> 
> No argument there. We thought of that when we where creating the xcap 
> based solution. The current solution can only hold a tel and a sip 
> URI.
> We plan on changing this.
> 
> Looks like a requirement needs to be added to the requirements 
> document.
> Does the solution need to be future proof? or do we just allow listing

> the currently known protocols?
> 
> Regards,
> Hisham
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of ext
> 
> > Rosen, Brian
> > Sent: 04.December.2003 16:48
> > To: 'xcon@ietf.org'
> > Subject: [XCON] CPCP and Conference URIs - there are more than one!
> > 
> > 
> > The discussion of multiple ways to create conferences triggered a 
> > discussion of XCON work being useable with multiple "using"
> (to borrow
> 
> > a phrase from geopriv) protocols.
> > 
> > We have been assuming that CPCP will, at one time or
> another, accept
> > or receive a conference uri, which has so far been thought
> of as a SIP
> 
> > uri.  This will not do.  There has to be a LIST of conference URIs, 
> > one for each using protocol the conference might support.
> > 
> > There are already conference bridges that accept both SIP and H.323 
> > endpoints intermixed.  The conference uri for the H.323
> endpoints does
> 
> > not start with "sip:" folks!
> > 
> > There might even be a tel uri in there, right?!!!
> > Ooh, Ooh, sure would be nice if that tel uri could have the PIN.
> > Nah, over the top :)
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
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