RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference

["Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com>]

Again, I'm worried about "privileged users".  I think we need to finish
some discussions we started a while ago that essentially are semantics.
What is an "inactivated" conference, and how does it differ from a
conference that can be re-instantiated (a weekly meeting for example)?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:57 AM
> To: xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: de-activating a conference
> 
> 
> This is in reference to requirement REQ-B9 in 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-cpcp-reqs-00.txt
> 
>    REQ-B9: It MUST be possible to inactive a conference for defined
>    period of time.
> 
> There are start and stop times for a conference. A conference 
> might live for days, weeks or even months. Should a 
> conference policy, using CPCP, allow a privileged user to 
> de-activate a conference for a period of time within the 
> start and stop times of a conference? Examples are 
> administrator is performing some maintenance.
> 
> Regards,
> Hisham
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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