Re: [XCON] Is the goal to Build H.3261?

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

Comments on my previous response (included below) to the problem with this
proposal? I love to make this as simple as possible but no simpler - I'm
sitting here starting out the Domino and Exchange API documentation as well
as proposal for an iCal / webdav based system. You got an idea on how to
make protocols like CPCP work without the client understanding that there
are infinite number of related recurring meetings, I'm all ears.


On 12/29/04 12:33 PM, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy at cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> I don't think this proposal works. The proposal pushes the problem of
> resource reservation into the calendaring system. The calendaring system has
> to be able to ask the conferencing system to reserve resources for an
> infinite series of meetings and find out if that is available or not. The
> calendaring system won't understand the resources well enough to reserve
> them even if it wanted to.
>  
> The other issues is that saying a meeting that was created by the
> calendaring system can only be modified thought the calendaring systems does
> not really work for me. I want to be able to use the XCON protocol for a
> client to change something like who the moderators is for a conference (see
> previous use case), or change the list of allowed participants. I'm imaging
> that the connector to the calendar system would be able to use the XCON
> protocol to talk to the conferencing system and modify meetings.
> 
> Today's conferencing systems have web pages where you can go and schedule
> and modify conferences and they sync that with calendaring systems. One way
> of looking at XCON is standardizing some ways to describing the knobs and
> controls on these web pages so they can be remote controlled by clients that
> understand them. 
>    

On 12/29/04 4:01 PM, "Adam Roach" <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:

> [not as chair]
> 
> Keith Lantz wrote:
> 
>> Regardless, IF it was never the intent of XCON to address
>> scheduled/reserved  meetings, with recurrence, IN ANY WAY, then I
>> apologize for not having gotten sufficiently involved/paid enough
>> attention to scream loudly ... then. But the bottom line for at least
>> some of us appears to be that it is insufficient to provide a
>> conferencing framework and associated protocol(s) that fail to
>> accommodate the implementation of conferencing systems that provide
>> such functionality.
> 
> 
> The mechanism I described earlier in no way fails to accommodate such
> systems. It merely requires that systems that specialize in calendaring
> do the calendaring functionality, and that systems that specialize in
> conferencing do the conferencing functionality.
> 
> I thought I did a fairly clear job of describing how this can be made to
> work. You don't seem to be making any arguments that such a system won't
> work; you're simply treating it as a foregone conclusion that anything
> other than the system you have in your head at the moment doesn't serve
> your purposes.
> 
> Take a step back and explain *why* what I described earlier doesn't work.
> 
> /a


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