XCON Work Group Agenda was bashed Document Status =============== BFCP (RFC4582) in AUTH48, but really, really is almost ready BFCP Interoperability Demonstration =================================== Simon Pietro Romano and Lorenzo Miniero give a presentation on and demonstration of BFCP in CONFiance 2 participants (minisip), floor control server (asterisk) + minisip participant SOAP API to XCON primitives It works! Data Model Draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-03 ==================================== Redefine controls syntax, with goal of simplicity Changes to common conference policies Open Issue #1: Change name of the draft to Conference Informatino Data Model for Centralized Conferencing (XCON) [closed] Open Issue #2: Document defines mute, gain, pause-video. Do we need more controls? How to extend them? Need to add extensibility mechanism. Open Issue #3: Dave Morgan: Important to be able to extend controls. Also, Video Layout is an important control to expose (e.g., 2x2, active speaker, 4x4, etc.). [Will add extensibility mechanism] Open Issue #4: What to do about roles? Mary: Instances of roles not fleshed out anywhere; would be good to flesh out somewhere. Separate document or in data model? Adam: Cannot use role instantiations outside data model, so useful to have it there. Dave: Good to have in data model, but need to allow for local roles (e.g., vendor-specific). [Will roll in the roles into the data model document.] Open issue #5: Lots of elements in the data model change when one changes a control state. Approaches: 1. Change data model to fix this and define extensions to event packages. 2. Change SIPPING conference event package. 3. Create XCON event package that is superset of SIPPING event package. Leaning towards 3. Rohan Mahy: Do we need a new even package, or can we just have another payload for the conference package. Brian Rosen: Not clear how this fixes anything? If you subscribe to the SIPPING event package, you will get all of this data. More desirable to have simple, old package get small amount of data; new package gets full boat. Adam (audience): Not really a different package, but different enough that you would want to enable negotiation. Rohan: Still sounds like a new MIME type, but not a new event package. Adam: Sounds like esthetic thing: in event header or MIME type. "event: conference; version=2" [Text will be proposed] A Framework and Data Model for Centralized Conferencing draft-ietf-xcon-framework-05 ============================== Updates and nits to do described. Expects -06 ready for WGLC. User Identifier Draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00 ============================ Issues: How much normative detail do we need, or is this just implementation-specific? Does the definition require the mapping to user identifiers for other protocols would be strict and obvious, or is that implementation-specific? How much detail do we need in the document? Roni: do need the identifier, especially if user is not a SIP inbound. [Not many people read the document; don't know if it would be required for interoperability.] XCON URI Draft-boulton-xcon-uri-00 ========================= Instantiation of a User Identifier. Roni: What would you use the XCON URI for? Mary: to address the conference Cullen Goes Way Off Topic ========================= SIMPLE Chat: What do we want to do with it? Not asking as a work group issue, but just looking to see if anyone cares. Hisham Khartabil: We need it. Mary: We need it. There is an individual draft that looks at SIMPLE Chat in the context of XCON. Miguel: Wrote it; some things XCON needed to look at it and took the good stuff from it (e.g., BFCP). Willing to do the work. Alan: Definitely need this work done. Adam: Two parts need to be done: Well thought out requirements went into the work. Need to make sure XCON data model does the stuff the SIMPLE Chat draft had. Probably need Informative document that says, "If you are going to put together SIMPLE Chat, you need these kinds of things" (see lemonade Profile for an example). Robert Sparks: Wants to hear more about what the content would be. For example, does 3GPP care any more? Andrew Allen: Some companies care; others think it should be in OMA. Miguel Garcia: 3GPP had some dependencies on the draft; OMA is lifting it directly. OMA gave up on IETF delivering something, so are going their own way. No one takes up challenge to do karaoke.