Subject: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework

From: mfdolan at lucent.com (Dolan, Michael F (Mike))
Date: Thu Aug 14 14:33:12 2003

Hi,

Isn't it a bit early in the work of XCON to declare biases toward / away from any particular protocols?  Wouldn't it be a bit better to understand all of the requirements first?

Mike Dolan
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:10 AM
To: 'Even, Roni'; 'Eric Burger'
Cc: 'IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework

Even, there is simply no justification for even mentioning H.248 in this
dedicated group that works to promote SIP and tries hard keep the old
monsters away. 

Just a matter of hygiene...

Henry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:06 AM
> To: 'Eric Burger'; Even, Roni; Henry Sinnreich (E-mail)
> Cc: IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework
> 
> Eric,
> The H.248 is not used by the EP but in order to control a mixer from a
> focus
> or in a decomposed model according to H.323 to control an MP by an MC. The
> EP will use the CPCP and MPCP to the conference/media policy server
> Roni
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:51 PM
> To: Even, Roni; Henry Sinnreich (E-mail)
> Cc: IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework
> 
> 
> If at all possible, I would try to stay far, far away from H.248.
> Depending
> on your perspective, it will seriously limit what an endpoint can request
> or
> it will significantly increase the amount of application interworking code
> required, neither of which is what people want to pay for.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Even, Roni [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tue, August 12, 2003 1:39 PM
> > To: Adam Roach; 'Rohan Mahy'; Steve Fisher
> > Cc: 'IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework
> >
> >
> >
> > To enhance Adam's point the ITU is working on H.248.19 "Decomposed
> > Multipoint Control Unit, Audio, Video and Data Conferencing
> > Packages" that
> > will enable the focus or a conference policy server to
> > control the mixers.
> >
> > Roni Even
> > Polycom
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:55 PM
> > To: 'Rohan Mahy'; Steve Fisher
> > Cc: 'IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework
> >
> >
> > Note also that the type of protocols that would be required
> > to perform such control is not completely unexplored. For
> > example, it is probable that the following would be a viable
> > solution:
> >
> > Apps (from vendor X)
> >   |
> >   | <- (CPCP)
> >   |
> > Conf Policy Server (from vendor Y)
> >   |
> >   | <- (H.248)
> >   |
> > Mixers (from vendor Z)
> >
> > The issue is that XCON is not going to define or even identify
> > a canonical protocol that goes between the conference policy
> > server and the mixer. We aren't going to analyze any particular
> > protocols for gaps.
> >
> > If you're really interested in making certain that, for example,
> > H.248 will serve the purpose you have in mind, you can certainly
> > take the issue to the MEGACO working group to see if you can get
> > enough interest.
> >
> > In particular, I want to make sure that people aren't equating
> > "out of scope for this working group" with "can't be standardized
> > anywhere" or "must be proprietary." It just means, "we're not
> > doing it *here*."
> >
> > /a
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:40
> > > To: Steve Fisher
> > > Cc: 'IETF XCON Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > > Subject: Re: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if I replied to this already. If not, sorry for
> > > the delay.
> > >
> > > Conferencing applications from one company can work with
> > mixers from
> > > another if the mixer vendor also provides a conference
> > policy server.
> > >
> > > Apps (from any vendor)
> > >   |
> > >   | <- (conf policy control protocol)
> > >   |
> > > Conf Policy Server (from vendor X)
> > >   |
> > >   | <- (proprietary protocol)
> > >   |
> > > Mixers (also from vendor X)
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > -rohan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 02:58 PM, Steve Fisher wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rohan,
> > > >
> > > > In your response to Eric you state the following goal for xcon:
> > > >
> > > > "The goal is to allow customers to select a
> > > > conferencing application that can work with many vendor's
> > mixers and
> > > > conference servers."
> > > >
> > > > I'm puzzled how this goal can be achieved when the protocol
> > > between the
> > > > application server and the mixers is explicitly out of
> > > scope for xcon?
> > > > According to the charter, the following is out of scope:
> > > "Protocol used
> > > > between the conference controller and the mixer(s)."
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > XCON mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://www.softarmor.com/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > XCON mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.softarmor.com/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > _______________________________________________
> > XCON mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.softarmor.com/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.softarmor.com/mailman/listinfo/xcon