[XCON] Review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-05
"Mary Barnes" <mary.barnes@nortel.com> Wed, 12 September 2007 00:43 UTC
Return-path: <xcon-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVGKV-00024k-20; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:43:43 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVGKT-00024f-Qa for xcon@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:43:41 -0400
Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com ([47.140.192.55]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVGKS-0005x8-Si for xcon@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:43:41 -0400
Received: from zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.72]) by zrtps0kn.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id l8C0hc627827; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:43:38 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:43:37 -0500
Message-ID: <E3F9D87C63E2774390FE67C924EC99BB16E79ABC@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-05
Thread-Index: Acf0xzj4ZA228CpKQIK5Qj4kzOmgGg==
From: Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
To: oscar.novo@ericsson.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 848ed35f2a4fc0638fa89629cb640f48
Cc: xcon@ietf.org
Subject: [XCON] Review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-05
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Oscar et al, I reviewed this draft and appreciate all the effort that has gone into it. I believe it is on the right track, but does need to resolve a few issues and clarify a few things before progressing. I apologize if some of my comments overlap with those that other's highlighted - I did review them, but may have missed a few. Also, I have slightly different comments on some of the same topics. I've included the Issues/questions first, followed by general comments and then editorial nits. Thanks, Mary. ======================================================================== ================================= Issues/questions: ----------------- 1) Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph - discussing the five roles - like others I had some concerns about this text: 1a) Like Ben, I do wonder if it needs to be normative or whether we need the text in the second paragraph, particularly given the sentence in the 1st paragraph that "A set of semantics associated with each role is out of scope of this document". The 2nd paragraph seems to try to do just that. The rest of my comments are premised that this paragraph is still deemed useful. If not, then you can ignore. 1b) I'm not entirely convinced of the hierarchy concept, especially when you bring in the "observer" role. But, see the comment 1e) as this negates this comment. 1c) 4th sentence, As far as the "creator" being the 'owner', wouldn't that be subject to conferencing system policies, as I would think there would be some systems where the 'owner' would be the administrator? It almost seems problematic to make that statement at all, as by defining 'owner' you're implying an additional role. 1d) 4th sentence, per my general editorial comment #2 below, the terms in this document should be consistent with the framework. The term instantiated in the framework is used when a conference object is created based on a reservation. The term that you want to use rather than "is instantiated" would be "becomes active". I think the point you're making here is that the creator can modify a conference reservation. But, I think the creator should also be able to modify the conference even after it is active (subject to policy restrictions). So, based on comments 1c) an 1d), I would think we might want to change that 4th sentence from: OLD: The The "creator" is the 'owner' of the conference and has various privileges which SHOULD allow them to modify the conference variables up to the time the conference is instantiated. NEW: The "creator" of the conference has various privileges which SHOULD allow them to modify the conference variables. 1e) I'm also not convinced of the need for the "observer" role, as it doesn't so much apply to privileges in terms of changes to the conference during its lifecycle, but specific media attributes. I would almost think that an observer is just a hidden participant, perhaps only visible to the moderator, consistent with the description in the framework: "The capability to observe a conference allows a participant with the appropriate authority to listen to the conference, typically without being an active participant and often as a hidden participant." 1e) Last sentence. It might be also useful to clarify that a conferencing system SHOULD also have at least one of the following {administrator, creator, moderator or observer} or there's really not much point in using this framework. I also can't quite see the point in saying that a conferencing system MAY define the participant role. What would be the point of a conference that didn't have participants, given that each user can have multiple roles (e.g., I would think a very typical set of roles for the moderator would be {creator, moderator, participant} ). 2) Section 4.4 (6th para in particular): I also had concerns over the usage of <moderator-controlled> as a boolean and a value for the <algorithm>. Even if you change the names as suggested, it still is unclear whether the <algorithm> can be "FCFS" or "random" if the <conference-floor-policy> is "moderator-controlled"? I would think not, in which case, is the <conference-floor-policy> really needed or can you just derive the fact that it's "moderator-controlled" from the <algorithm>? 3) Section 4.5.1 <allowed-users-list> [Note: I think Srivatsa also had a comment on this, but his email specifies section 3.7.1 and Ben also had a comment on this element] My initial concern is that this element is overloaded, in that it defines which users are allowed to be participants in a conference, it defines the methods by which a user may become a participant in a conference and it also indicates direct actions needed to be taken by the focus to add participants to a conference. I also think there's some gap in specification. For example, it seems to me that a user with a 'method' attribute of "refer" MUST also have a 'method' attribute of "dial-in" in order to be a participant in the conference (i.e., otherwise when the resource initiates the request to join the conference, how are they allowed to be added OR is the expectation that there's an indicator that they were referred?). It also seems that the use of Refer for SIP really isn't particularly useful - i.e., why wouldn't the focus just "dial-out" the specified resources. It does make some sense in the context of alternative communication means. 4) Section 5, page 28, user-admission-policy-type: I'm wondering if there should also not be a plain "Open" (i.e., no auth required, but NOT anonymous). General editorial comments: --------------------------- [These are based on reviewing the document for consistency with terminology in the Centralized Conferencing Framework document] 1) When referencing the framework change the term from "XCON Conferencing Framework" to "Centralized Conferencing Framework" [this was a change made just before it was forwarded to AD for progression] 2) It might be better to change the terms the various stages, for example in the first paragraph of the introduction, to be consistent with the framework document (as introduced in the 5th paragraph of section 3 - Overview), particularly since there is the mapping isn't clear to me (e.g., what's the difference between started and running) : OLD: (e.g., reserved, started, running, ended, etc.) NEW: (e.g., created/creation, reserved/reservation, active/activation, completed/completion) 3) PSTN reference needs to be changed to explicitly refer to Q.931, ISUP, etc. [another post-WGLC change], for example, 3rd paragraph of the intro: OLD: (e.g., SIP, H.323, PSTN, etc.) NEW: (e.g., SIP, H.323, Q.931, ISUP, etc.) Note: this also impacts the schema. Nits: ----- 1) Section 2, last paragraph: change "are supposed to" -> "should" 2) Section 3, last sentence: insert "additional" before "advanced" since this data model should be provided advanced features beyond those provided by the data model in RFC 4575: OLD: It is expected that this data model can be further extended with new elements in the future in order to implement advanced features. NEW: It is expected that this data model can be further extended with new elements in the future in order to implement additional advanced features. 3) Section 4.1.1, next to the last paragraph: is -> are "..when users or resources on the <allowed-users-list> is requested..." 4) Section 4.5, last sentence: shouldn't <conference-description> be <users> ? 5) Section 4.5.1, last paragraph: change "difference users" -> "different users" _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon