RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times

["Chris Boulton" <cboulton@ubiquity.net>]

I agree with Paul.  We are already in danger of over-complicating the
work being done in XCON.  There does not seem to me to be any
detrimental effects of having this policy information included in CPCP.

Chris.
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com]
>Sent: 07 January 2004 14:35
>To: Even, Roni
>Cc: 'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'; petri.koskelainen@nokia.com;
>xcon@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times
>
>Roni,
>
>To me this is splitting hairs. I think it makes sense to include start
>and stop time(s) in the conference policy - they are quite consistent
>with other kinds of policy information. How that policy gets acted upon
>is irrelevant, as long as it does get acted upon - it is an
>implementation detail. It might be acted upon directly by the policy
>server, or by a separate conference server, or some other way. The
>simple fact is that you can influence it by changing the policy using
CPCP.
>
>Do you really want to standardize another active entity and another
>protocol just for this?
>
>	Paul
>
>Even, Roni wrote:
>> Hisham,
>>
>> The conference server is not mentioned in
>> draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-01. The framework mentioned
the
>> conference policy server. As for reservation my view is that
reservation
>is
>> starting an ad-hoc conference when the schedule time has arrived and
it
>> should not be part of the conference policy. Reservation is a
separate
>> application from the conference policy. I suggest that if you want to
>> address it then we should have a separate element in the frame work
which
>> will be a reservation server.
>>
>> Roni
>>
>> *************************************
>> Roni Even
>>
>> Polycom Israel
>>
>> Tel: +972-3-9251200
>> Cell: +972-55-481099
>> email:roni.even@polycom.co.il
>> *******************************************
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:22 AM
>> To: roni.even@polycom.co.il; petri.koskelainen@nokia.com;
xcon@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times
>>
>>
>> No, the focus host (conference server) is the one that handles the
>> reservations. The focus is only created and destroyed by the
conference
>> server according to the start and stop times.
>>
>> /Hisham
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ext Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il]
>>>Sent: 06.January.2004 19:06
>>>To: Koskelainen Petri (Nokia-NRC/Tampere); Even, Roni;
>>>Khartabil Hisham
>>>(Nokia-TP/Helsinki); 'xcon@ietf.org '
>>>Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Petri,
>>>The CPS is a data storage that is used by the focus, so the
>>>focus will have
>>>to handle the reservation
>>>Roni
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: petri.koskelainen@nokia.com
>>>To: roni.even@polycom.co.il; hisham.khartabil@nokia.com;
xcon@ietf.org
>>>Sent: 06/01/2004 18:50
>>>Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times
>>>
>>>Hi Roni,
>>>
>>>
>>>>My opinion is that the conference policy needs only a
>>>>conference duration parameter if any.
>>>>I think that reservation is an external
>>>>application to the focus. According to the conference
>>>>framework the focus is using the information in the
>>>>conference policy server and the focus is
>>>>not the right place for reservation.
>>>
>>>The reservation is sent to CPS, not to focus.
>>>I think it makes sense to have this (repeat time) capability
>>>in protocol
>>>since we need the feature anyway in real-world (either in CPCP
>>>or in some new mystery protocol between the user and the reservation
>>>application).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Petri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Roni Even
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
>>>>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:57 PM
>>>>To: xcon@ietf.org
>>>>Subject: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Repeat times
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A conference has start and stop times. Although the current proposed
>>>>solution has repeat times (eg: meeting repeats weekly), there is no
>>>>requirement for such.
>>>>
>>>>Do we see a need for such capability using CPCP? If so, then
>>>>we need to add
>>>>a requirement.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com

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