Reviewed charter milestones. Noted that this is first meeting of the WG and we're already behind. Discussed draft-even-xcon-conference-scenarios-00. There were questions about adequacy of scenarios, especially regarding text media. * Cullen Jennings agreed to contribute some text on that subject. * Room polled for consensus: should we accept this draft as a WG item? Hum indicated support. Joerg Ott discussed draft-koskelainen-xcon-floor-control-req-00. There was question by Jonathan Rosenberg about relationship to focus - not covered by document. Roni Even and Rohan Mahy also asked about positioning re the conferencing framework. (There seemed to be sentiment for better positioning of this doc) Dean Willis asked if the protocol will allow selection of a particular floor - Joerg said yes. Juhe Garg raised concern with the number of protocols that conference participants must implement. Answer was that this doc is just requirements, not specification of a protocol. Nermeen Ismail asked whether participants are notified who has the floor. Answer was there is a requirement for this. Cullen Jennings asked for way for requestor to know what status is of request for floor. Marcus Brunner discussed draft-brunner-xcon-fc-issues-00. This draft asserts floor control mechanism must be independent of policy; policy is instead part of the conference application. Question by chair if this could be incorporated into the floor control requirements document. Joerg and author had discussion of fine points of this. Decided this should be taken to the mailing list. Brian Rosen expressed opinion that the requirements were verging on too much for initial work - should remove rather than add requirements. * On hum, agreed to accept the combination of these two documents as WG doc. * Room polled for consensus: should we accept the combinations of these two documents a WG item? Hum indicated support. Hisham Khartabil presented draft-koskelainen-xcon-cpcp-reqs-01. Juhe Garg requested addition of requirement to control when a conference ends. * Room polled for consensus: should we accept this draft as a WG item? Hum indicated support. Hisham also discussed draft-koskelainen-xcon-xcap-cpcp-usage-01: asked for opinions on use of XCAP for this. The people present were not prepared to commit on this. Orit Levin presented draft-levin-xcon-cpcp-00 (apparently an alternative to draft-koskelainen-xcon-xcap-cpcp-usage-01.) She had some issues with XCAP - expressed opinion it would unduly influence schema - preferred focusing on xml schema independent of transport used to manage it - open to http, sip, soap. Discussion continued on both documents. Cullen Jennings thought things don't hang together very well yet - need more work. Alan Johnston complained that he hadn't seen anything on list about it - asserted not ready to decide on one approach vs the other - need to take this to the list. Lisa Dusseault mentioned new ACL Webdav extensions. Chairs requested people to read and comment on the requirements. * Cullen Jennings, Eric Burger, and others agreed to do so. Rohan discussed draft-mahy-xcon-media-policy-control-00. It raises issue of what level of abstraction does the wg want to work at. There was very lively discussion of this, only slightly captured here. Got to question of whether the application deals with application specific roles, and they are the subjects in interaction with media policy, or whether the application must itself map its notion of role onto some non-application-specific notation of media streams, etc. Cullen Jennings thought roles of participants can change - wasn't sure if everybody on same page. Doesn't want it to be hard to figure out roles. He also doesn't know how an "application" relates to the model, but apparently it is important. Nermeen Ismail reiterated desire to make policy engine unaware of significance of particular roles. She feels "media policy" is a bad term. Eric Burger wanted something fairly high level - gave analogy - assembly language is more flexible than Java, but would prefer to use Java. Eric also said even MGCP would be preferred to the logical model proposed. Rohan and Eric debated on connections between media and conference policy. Rohan thinks there are cases where changes to role of a participant in conf policy also affect media policy. Eric says "not necessarily" - it is up to "application" to decide if both should be changed. Alan raised issue that changes to media policy must be able to be reflected back to users - need some way to reverse engineer the changes to something user meaningful. Also commented that the "application" is the user interface. Thought that the conceptual approach was better than the logical (Rohan) approach for this. Juhe Garg wanted to remove term "roles" - focus only on "permissions". Eric really didn't like this. Rohan felt use cases are needed. Nermeen wanted better requirements. Rohan then showed a strawman definition of a subconference - asserting it is a conversation. Brian Rosen then showed a couple of slides (jennings-xconMediaPolicyRan.pdf) of rebutal to Rohan's, asking what is the problem we are trying to solve. Asserted draft-mahy-xcon-media-policy-control-00 is too complicated, and doesn't address the problem directly. Its a language to describe media flow graphs, not one to control them. Not facilitating interoperable implementations. Brian proposed templates instead. Rohan was concerned with how to map templates for media control onto conference control. Brian gave an example of a mix-minus mixer. Said #input audio streams, #output audio streams (max) are bound at conf creation. This raised a lot of concerns from audience. People felt this was almost what Rohan was proposing. Rohan asserted that any proposal must address how it interacts with conf policy. And Cullen wanted to be sure it covers all the requirements. Jonathan didn't think it was necessary to solve all problems as long as there is extensibility. Media policy requirements draft by Roni Even mentioned: hasn't changed since last meeting. See everyone next time!