Subject: [XCON] Media Policy in Conferencing Framework

From: eburger at snowshore.com (Eric Burger)
Date: Thu Aug 14 10:08:42 2003

Agreed.  However, quoting myself:
> it will significantly increase the amount of application 
> interworking code

Why impose burdens on the conferencing application at this point in time?  If we don't impose burdens on the application, then we're saying the CPCP/MPCP will look or at least act like H.248.  This is not a desired restriction on the protocol.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thu, August 14, 2003 2:06 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
> > 
> > 
> 
>