Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP - making something simple that works

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:58:29 -0500

Henning,

I can name two cases where explicitly expelling someone is useful:

1) An enterprise conference is discussing company sensitive material of 
economic value and someone manages to join and refused to identify themselves,

2) Someone on the conference puts it on hold improperly and plays music on 
hold to the conference.

Both of these happen frequently enough that an ability to eject the 
offending user is desirable and more preferable to wasting time getting 
everyone to move on to another conference.  It shouldn't be necessary to 
get hold of a moderator to do the expelling.

Mike

At 02:27 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>>I believe timing is important and is one major advantage of CPCP over
>>ad-hoc conferences.
>
>Note, however, that this can easily be done by an external application 
>that uses a normal calendaring mechanism (such as the iCal extensions for 
>events) and then generates CPCP requests. Having a very simple single 
>start/end-time (no repeats) is sufficient for that and does not add 
>significant complexity.
>
>>What about security of the conference? is that a priority? How
>>desides on the level of security and what protocol to use? who sets
>>the password for the conference? I am ok with having a default
>>authentication mechanism like digest for joining a conference.
>
>I would find it peculiar if joining a conference required anything other 
>than a standard SIP client, for example.
>
>>There is also the issue of expelling users. What is the opinion on
>>that? Is it important?
>
>I have never seen that be used in real conferences, even where the feature 
>was available. If this is a rather rare event, it is easier to create a 
>new conference without the offending user and have everyone minus one move 
>to the new conference. The much more common case is the executive session 
>(or the jury session, e.g., for a thesis defense), which seems most 
>readily modeled as two sessions with distinct participants, set up from 
>the beginning.
>
>The problem with expelling is that this adds the risk of accidental 
>invocation and probably does not deal with the full range of Robert's 
>Rules stipulations and procedures.
>
>I think a natural threshold for initial inclusion is common usage in 
>today's conferencing systems.
>
>Henning
>
>_______________________________________________
>XCON mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:52:48 -0500

> economic value and someone manages to join and refused to identify 

If they manage to join the first time without authentication, why 
wouldn't they rejoin the second time, under a different alias?

> 
> 2) Someone on the conference puts it on hold improperly and plays music 
> on hold to the conference.

Muting that party is probably the preferred approach, since you may want 
that party to rejoin once they have been told not to do that again.