RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model

["Orit Levin" <oritl at microsoft.com>]

First, I would like to restate my support for the concensus below.
 
One of the major aspects to be addressed in the XCON data model is how
to make it extensible by both standard and vendor specific content.

I started this discussion in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-xcon-conference-package-
ext-00.txt and presented the requirements in
http://www.softarmor.com/xcon/meets/ietf64/slides/levin-conf-pkg-ext-iet
f64.ppt. During the meeting Jari expressed his preference to just using
RelaxNG for XCON instead, but this would require getting approval from
the XML directorate and other interested parties. Jari also volunteered
to talk to the "XML directorate" regarding this topic.

My preference would be to still take the precautions and RECOMMEND the
simple conventions suggested in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-xcon-conference-package-
ext-00.txt in order to be compatible with the strict standard-compliant
XML compilers and not just RelaxNG.

In any case, I suggest that we incorporate the alternatives into the
common data draft and continue investigating both directions.

Thanks a lot,
Orit.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:30 AM
> To: Adam Roach; XCON-IETF
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model
> 
> Thanks Adam for your help. 
> I think it's good idea to start discussing in the mailing 
> list the elements we need to define in the Data Model. I 
> agree the Data Model draft is too SIP-dependent and should 
> have additional items but, as is written in the document, 
> this first version only try based on the SIP event package to 
> collect the data model information introduce for other draft 
> (it does NOT define new elements) that's why is too SIP-dependent.
> This is one thing we should change in the next version of the draft.
> There are more open issues that we should discuss as well. 
> All your comments are welcome.
> 
> Oscar
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Sent: 17. marraskuuta 2005 2:32
> To: XCON-IETF
> Subject: [XCON] Call for Consensus and Discussion: Data Model
> 
> [as chair]
> 
> In Vancouver, there was considerable discussion around the 
> XCON data model. There seemed to be considerable consensus 
> around the position that we would use the XML schema defined in
> draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package-12 as the basis for the 
> data model used in XCON.
> 
> There was also a sentiment expressed that this schema needs 
> additional elements added so that it can express all the 
> information relevant to the data model we are defining in XCON. 
> draft-novo-xcon-common-data-model-00 purports to be a 
> starting point for defining such additional elements.
> 
> This message is intended to (a) verify the consensus to use 
> the conference event package as a starting point, and (b) 
> spur discussion around what additional data items are 
> necessary to make it complete for XCON's purposes.
> 
> /a
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 

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