Minutes - XCON - IETF76 Summary (prepared by Richard Barnes): 1. Chairs' Introduction The chairs reviewed the status of the WG's documents. draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model is in a holding pattern, waiting on CCMP. There were no objections to removing IM- and policy-related milestones from the charter. 2. CCMP draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp Simon Romano presented an update on this document. The latest version includes several revisions in response to a review from Richard Barnes, all of which were supported by the WG. Mr. Romano plans to take one more round of comments and have a final draft ready in early 2010. 3. BFCP over UDP draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp Alan Johnston presented an update on this document on behalf of Tom Kristensen. Several commenters pointed out that the current draft still has many problems that had been called out at previous meetings, The draft will not be taken up by the WG at this time. Raw notes from Martin Thomson follow: ------------------------------------------------------------ Agenda Bash Agenda was OK Work Item Status No discussion Simon Romano on Conference Control Manipulation Protocol -04 posted recently small but important modifications to the document better clarity required and some technical issues document structure was a source of confusion issue over the scope of application ofthe conference password, does the password relate to the entire conference, or each conference URI? WG input sought; Mary Barnes noting that the URI encompasses the entire (not enough context to make sense of the conclusion - conclusion was to make no change) XSD or RNG? rbarnes wanted all xcon documents to use the same schema mechanism; roni even giving history, following the same path for the other document, adding RNG later updates to confObjs. Added versioning in the latest update. if modifications are accepted, the server updates the entire object and it updates/increments the version. all server responses will contain the version number. is this OK? mary barnes notes that this solves the problem of working out what version the server is operating on; alan johnston agrees this is workable and lightweight request filtering? mary notes that this is functionality that was desired from the framework, if it is not too hard, add it. progress: mary thinks it's close to ready; adam roach agrees that it would be good to set an aggressive goal, and not even meet at IETF77; mary says that a meeting might be needed; simon: call flows are there, but they need work to be updated gonzalo camarillo is waiting on the data model to be completed, what is the plan? alan johnston: the data model is past WGLC; gonzalo: pub-req along with CCMP? answer: yes; alan: maybe we can move everything together; general agreement to do that ==Revision of the Binary Floor Control Protocol for unreliable transport (Alan Johnston) Current protocol relies on a TLS/TCP connection, but TCP does not always work. Roni BFCP used where there are two video streams, for instance video and presentation. TCP is problematic, more like problems with SBCs; some fallbacks to UDP, some to HTTP; need to create a profile that uses UDP as a fallback mode to deal with deployment problems Roni: this is sometimes used for multipoint Draft looks at limitations and flow maintenance issues. Need to look at DTLS (for encryption), framing, fragmentation, and versioning. No action requested by the authors on this document. RJS feedback: the characterization that this is for NAT/firewall traversal needs to be changed to SBC traversal more specifically and explicitly; what about congestion safety over UDP? Please have a look at congestion safety here so that we can make sure that this can proceed. Gonzalo: has worked on this in the past, maybe to integrate with BFCP. Problems were raised, but the authors did not respond. We need to enumerate issues and address them. Roni: this is now more important now that work is being done on this John Elwell: This is now active again. Adam Roach: repeating old concerns: this does not address interoperability with TCP-based implementations that are already out there; this does not work in SIP; needs a mechanism for negotiation or fallback; does not want un-interoperable Gonzalo: the protocol can be fairly lax; needs more than just retransmission to ensure reliability Roni: there are capability negotiations in SDP that could be used to address this Simon: authors on chat have noted that there are some effort to address some of the concerns: fragmentation Gonzalo: is OK to resurrect this, but doesn't like the tactics Chairs: need to show interest, address issues and do so quickly because the WG is winding down ==Other issues Alan: is there interest in dealing with the policy and IM-related work Gonzalo: policy was removed from the protocol because it was hard; be serious about this if you take this on, don't expect the WG to die Mary: maybe wrap this up, then see if people want to deal with this, then re-charter a new WG or go through DISPATCH for the work if there is the will to do so; don't continue in here Simon: agrees and wants to close down RBarnes: any objection to removing the milestones from the charter.