[XCON] Comments in XCON CCMP
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 16:26 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F5C28C184 for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:26:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.622, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h+3Ugp6Ue-Wa for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DED928C147 for <xcon@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oBFGPVa7014913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:19 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:05 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: 'Mary Barnes' <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:04 +0100
Thread-Topic: Comments in XCON CCMP
Thread-Index: AcucdQwl3uEtrPB+TbuK4lGZ9/wgJA==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E43C7F9@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Cc: "xcon@ietf.org" <xcon@ietf.org>
Subject: [XCON] Comments in XCON CCMP
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:26:40 -0000
Based on a quick glance through the document, these are identified in the -11 version. Section 5.1: confUserID: An optional parameter containing the XCON-USERID of the client. The XCON-USERID is used to identify any conferencing client within the context of the conferencing system and it is assinged by the conferencing server at each conferencing client who interacts with it. The "confUserID" parameter is REQUIRED in the CCMP request and response messages with the exception of the case of a user who has no XCON-USERID and who wants to enter, via CCMP, a conference whose identifier is known. In such case, a side-effect of the request is that the user is provided with an appropriate XCON-USERID. An example of the above mentioned case will be provided in Section 5.3.6. "assinged" --> "assigned". Section 5.3.12: The <standard-message-list> MUST appear in the optionsResponse and MUST NOT be void, since a CCMP server MUST be able to handle at least one of the standard messages in at least one of the envisioned operations, i.e. the aforementioned list MUST carry at least one <standard-message> containing at least one <operation> element. I think this has overdone the RFC 2119 language (3 "MUST" and 1 "MUST NOT") to the extent that I don't understand parts of it. Trying to disect it I get: The CCMP server MUST include the <standard-message-list> containing at least one <operation> element in the optionsResponse. Is there anything else here that should be RFC 2119 language? regards Keith
- [XCON] Comments in XCON CCMP DRAGE, Keith (Keith)