[XCON] 3rd set of notes from first day of interim meeting

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

Mary presents on ....

Discussion about if we do sipping event package work in xcon or not.

Moved to framework document. Should there be one document that provides an
overall view of what is going on in conferencing.

Move so that we have to read two documents. One document that talks about
the signaling framework and another (the xcon one) that talks about the xcon
part of it. 

Keith: The sipping and xcon framework documents are peers

AD: The sipping framework is not going to have anything about xcon in it.
There are a few definitions of things like focus in sipping that are sip
specific. xcon might define focus a little differently. XCON might want
things like a loosely coupled vs. tightly coupled conference. XCON can say
there is notification - but not get into detail about it because XCON is
agnostic about signaling. Don't get into details of signaling protocols -
assume they have reasonable things.



Switch to Henning presenting ....
- see his slides
- add that a conference state but this can be active or latent
- reservation has the connotation that something was reserved
- looked at tree model


What is the advantage of hierarchy. Provides more inheritance model: such as
corporate policy, restrictions provided by device, and time.

Question is if this needs to be exposes in the model. Answer is that if you
edit an intermediate it has an effect on the children.

Q. how do sidebars work? Henning: working on inheritance based idea - still
needs work 

Introduce idea of BUS for a mixer .... Some discussion. Brian things this is
probably not going to help too much.

seemed to have agreement that .... When a conference is finished, it may go
back to latent state before being purged at some later state.


Back to Orit.... 
- see her slides
This is about changing the value of things in some object that has a name.
Proposal would allow creation of new types of keys.

Keith asked about why not xpath? Orit: Implantation complexity 2) can't pre
validate the document 3) this one allows keys  that logically identify
something but not necessarily a xpath expression

Henning: 80% of reinventing soap but with not of the benefits of something
that exists. 

Henning example if you are editing "joining behavior" what would happen.
Infinite number of error conditions.

Can combine multiple requests and can they are atomic.



Back to Henning .....
- see his slide on Control Protocol
- have get/set/add
Brian - need to add list manipulation too

Keith ask clarification on "transaction semantics". Henning: want each
command to be a single change.

Orit want to make the server not the client smart. Orit wants a full RPC
approach. 

Issues is semantic vs syntactic (ie. addUser vs. get/set) not SOAP vs
something else

Henning, Brian, I, agree - doing the semantic approach breaks any chance of
doing user interfaces that client did not know about






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