Subject: [Insipid] INSIPID Req#3 - comments?

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:03:04 -0500

Figure it is about time I sent these requirements out to the list. 
Comments, questions and wordsmithing are encouraged. Let's see if we 
can leave much of the wordsmithing till the end of the discussion, 
once we have agreed on the requirement's worthiness and contents.

Let's also keep the discussion on *this* thread to just *this* 
requirement for tracking purposes. There are 9 current requirements. 
Therefore, there will be 9 different messages sent to this list.

Here is REQ#3 as currently written in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-insipid-session-id-reqts-00.txt

    REQ3: It must be possible to identify all sessions
    participating in a multipoint or multi-party conference
    by observing the end-to-end session identifiers of each
    session.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:06:02 -0400

> by observing the end-to-end session identifiers of each

What sorts of conference topologies does this apply to?
I expect it was written with a star topology in mind. Is it expected to 
apply to other topologies as well - such as two connected stars?

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:30:10 +0300

On 4/27/12 12:06 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I expect it was written with a star topology in mind.
yep, a star topology was in my mind when we discussed it...
not sure if other had different one

> Is it expected to
you mean a scenario where each star has at the center a MCU with its own 
subset of participants
and MCU1 and MCU2 host two different conference session,
but the MCU2 is also a participant for the conf at MCU1.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:34:14 -0400

> but the MCU2 is also a participant for the conf at MCU1.

yep.

But that was just an example.

My assumption is that you only had a star topology in mind, and anything 
else would be gravy.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:54:00 -0500

At 01:34 PM 4/28/2012, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>My assumption is that you only had a star topology in mind, and 
>anything else would be gravy.

I had a star in mind, with the possibility of multiple stars in the 
initial call, where everyone has the original session-ID. I don't 
know about joining an MCU with its star after the original MCU 
brought the conference on-line (i.e., joining two independent star 
conferences that originally had their own session-IDs).

James

>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid