Re: [XCON] Consensus Call: CCMP Muting interaction with BFCP

[lennox at cs.columbia.edu]

I agree that BFCP and CCMP should operate independently in this respect.

A related question, though, is that CCMP (via the common data model) seems
to have multiple ways of muting a user.  Do the
endpoint/media/status=recvonly and
endpoint/media/controls/to-mixer/mute=true states operate independently?
Are the authorization requirements for the two expected to be different?

(I'm in general perplexed about the to-mixer and from-mixer controls in the
common data model -- is the presence of "VideoIn" and "VideoOut" mixers
inside a media/type=audio block in the example in common-data-model-13 an
error?  If not, what does it mean?)

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
lennox at cs.columbia.edu / jonathan at vidyo.com

On Wednesday, August 5 2009, "Adam Roach" wrote to "XCON-IETF" saying:

> [as chair]
> 
> At the face-to-face meeting in Stockholm, we discussed the interaction 
> between muting conditions created by CCMP and the muting conditions 
> created by BFCP. The question was whether these manipulated a single 
> muting state (which would imply that a CCMP unmute operation would 
> override the muting imposed by not having the floor in BFCP), or whether 
> these operations operated on independent muting states (both of which 
> must be unmuted for media to be contributed to the conference).
> 
> The consensus among those in attendance was that the protocols operated 
> on independent muting states.
> 
> If you have an opinion on this topic -- either in support of that 
> consensus or in opposition to it -- please express it on the mailing list.