XCON (Wednesday 15:10 - 16:10) ============================== Agenda bash ----------- 1510 - 1520 Protocol Selection Discussion ------------------------------------------ Chairs (10 minutes) Adam: WG chair introduction to issue. Setting deadlines to the discussion. Any proposals not covered in terms in protocol need to be produced by the end of the year. At beginning of next year volunteers to author a document that does an evaluation of the different solutions. Goal is to have protocol solution by end of 2006. Cullen. Like the idea of setting dates. Not keen on an evaluation yet. Only proposal on table that can manipulate the templates (the variable part). Other IETF group that did this evaluation went and selected the worst one. We need to evolve all the solutions to meet the requirements and then choose the best. Mary: Need to sort out the most important requirements. Do not think we will make progress with a protocol evaluation phase. Rohan: Echo. We do not need to decide to do this. Idea of closing input is excellent. Mary: May be best just to pick one solution. Does not matter which. Jon: This is valid in document by Ted Hardie. If don't know how to make a decision, then this is as good as anything. Conclusion: Have discussion on list in January opn best way of moving forward. Henning: Be good to have an excutive summary of the particular approach. Supportors bring this forward. Rohan: If no conclusion to January discussion, chairs should choose the approach, and this should be done well berfore Dallas. All agreed. 1520 - 1530 CCCP ----------------- Orit Levin (10 minutes) draft-levin-xcon-cccp-03.txt Orit presenting: Heavily revised as a result of implementation experience. A new protocol, as existing protocols do not meet the requirements. Not data manipulation (like XCAP or WebDav) but rather object manipulation. Runs on any reliable protocol, but does not rely on underlying transaction model (unlike SOAP/HTTP). Henning: Please clarify on request response association. Orit: In SOAP over HTTP cannot send multiple requests and responses. Henning: Partially true. Orit presenting: Transaction client-server protocol. Final response x2 and provisional pending response. Request and response attributes (like SIP headers). Multiple primitives in a single operation - can signal an atomic operation. However have decided at the moment not to use this, instead define a single primitive which combines the meaning of multiple primitives. Object manipulation approach - object identified by keys without navigating through the entire XML document. Response codes carry application semantics. Example of object manipulation primitive. Define dedicated primitives for operations where at least one of the following properties are desirable - atomic, applied to set of objects, efficiency. Example of operation. CCCP and events - does not appear in draft, but is something from the framework so added to presentation. Notifications can be sent using operation in CCCP as transport for these rather than SIP. Next steps: CCCP is open to modification - ! can be taken as basis. If not planning to publish as informational. Henning: What is motivation to have two event notification mechanisms (SIP and CCCP) that have to be implemented. Orit: SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY not best choice because cannot reuse the transport. Keith: In follow that argument, then will also add floor control to this, as that does not reuse same transport. Cullen: Nothing in framework to need this. Sidebars within main object. How will do this. How do templates relate to this protocol. Orit: This protocol can manipulate anything that is defined in XML. Templates are XML. What is missing from data manipulation protocols is primitives with semantic content. Cullen: Understand simplicity, but need extensible way of adding to "move sidebar" to an existing client. Orit: Different clients with different requirements. Sidebars in templates draft are met by placeholders. A single CCCP operation can modify this value. Henning: One of differentiating feature mentioned is ability to have provisional responses. What in current set of operations has this been found to be useful? Also atomicity feature where it is not used. Should not design protocols with unused features. Discussion Henning / Orit seemed to agree on removing features that were not used. Orit: Provision responses. Establish call to third party that takes time. Henning: Preference for fewest number of mechanisms. In SIP would get rid of provisional responses and have event notification. Likewise here. Adam: Agree with Cullen that it makes more sense now. If someone were to design a template variable to change the pitch of a speakers voice how would one use CCCP to do it? Orit: Depends on how template defined, but Modify template element (element name, element new value). Cullen: Are we going down parth of two protocols, One part to manipulate the dynamic part and one the static part? Orit: Not two protocols. 1530 - 1545 Media Templates ---------------------------- Chris Boulton (15 minutes) draft-boulton-xcon-media-template-02.txt Chris presenting: XCON framework defines conference object which is common conference information and template. Subject of draft is the template. Described what a template is. Described blueprint is an XML file based on .xsd. Brian: Thought we all agreed that blueprint was object with the initial set of values in it. Mary: In current version of framework, blueprint is common conference information along with the template. Brian: But the initial values come from the blueprint. Clone values from the blueprint. Adam: talking past each other? Henning: If do Brian's approach have overlap with the cloning operation. This is a framework issue. Unless we get this straight will have way too much complexity. Cullen: All know what we want but get confused on terminology. Should delegate to Mary to enforce a common terminology on all participants. All agreed. Chris presenting: Document overview. Open issues. Functionality boundaries of templates. Single namespace versus namespace per template - discussed yesterday but no conclusion. Cullen: Should pick same solution as chosen for SIMPLE. Chris presenting: Open issues. Also need to align with Cullen's draft. Need to cover wider range of templates. Input required from WG. Is this a working group item. Adam (chair): More input from group before we make that decision. Cullen: All issues that are open are issues that can be solved in a WG document. Adam (chair): not yet sufficent discussion on the list. 1545 - 1610 Protocol Selection Open Discussion ----------------------------------------------- Chairs (25 minutes) None.