RE: [XCON] CPCP requirements to support IMS

["Eric Burger" <eburger@snowshore.com>]

Why do we need an explicit policy at all?

Wouldn't the bridge, by its nature, accept or reject the different media types?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> Sent: Fri, December 12, 2003 9:32 AM
> To: adam@dynamicsoft.com; petri.koskelainen@nokia.com; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP requirements to support IMS
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 


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