Subject: RE: [XCON] Conference Control

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:47:54 -0000

Hello Chris,

I think you are focusing too much in the web services.

[Chris Boulton] That was my realization and why I am trying to broaden
my thinking rather than focusing on specific deployment restrictions.

 The protocol we choose has to have a good performance in a bunch of
uses cases, not only web services (for instance: mobile phones, PDA,
wireless, etc...) and I believe CSCP is much compact and it will have a
better performance in wireless, and handset devices than SOAP.

[Chris Boulton] See first comment :-).  If you read my mail I am
actually trying to discuss a potential solution that covers a complete
set of architectures.  Also this was not supposed to be a 'vs' debate.
It was meant to probe the potential for supplying both.

And another thing that is quite important, CSCP can be uses in web
services but, probably, SOAP will be a problem in some systems with low
bandwidth.

[Chris Boulton] I get the handset bandwidth - I have heard it in almost
every IETF meeting I've been to + I also agree it's a major
consideration BUT lets not just keep harping back to it.

Oscar

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Chris Boulton
Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2006 12:01
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Adam Roach
Subject: [XCON] Conference Control

Hi All,

Just wanted to generate some discussion relating to the recent
Conference Control submissions.  I would like to begin by thanking all
the relevant parties for the effort contributed before Christmas.  

While I realise that the thoughts conveyed in this mail are a little
controversial, I thought I would poke my head up into the firing line in
attempt to stimulate some discussion.  I have reviewed all of the
proposals and will be providing questions and feedback in individual
mails.  This mail is an attempt to discuss some architectural decisions
that I personally feel are equally as important.  As some of you may
already know, I am a supporter of the SOAP proposals (Henning, myself
and Mary) that are currently being worked on.  This led me to realise
that my preference was being swayed (purely selfish :-) by 'who exactly
will be a conference client manipulating Conference Objects?'  As an
application server vendor who's product very much utilises web services.
SOAP seems the obvious choice.  From a handset vendor I can also see
that proposals such as CCCP and CSCP are more appealing.  As an
application server offering conferencing services using web services it
may be likely, as it is not mandatory, that BFCP be implemented in the
solution and so developing support for something like CSCP would be seen
as a burden, especially as we already have a web services interface that
provides all the relevant infrastructure to link to our clients.

It is for these reasons that I was pondering the prospect of XCON
allowing both a handset friendly interface such as CSCP and a SOAP
interface for web services where the client might well be another
application and not a handset.  I realise that having two interfaces is
not ideal, but as long as we are careful in our rules on minimal
implementation and ability to advertise capabilities to a Conference
Client I personally feel that this is the best solution to make XCON
appealing to a wide variety of architectures.

I'm going to duck now and wait for incoming bullets but on a serious
note I strongly appeal to all who are interested on making Dallas a
productive meeting to comment on mails such as this over the coming
months.

Best Regards,

Chris Boulton.

Information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are intended
for the use of the addressee only, and may contain confidential
information of Ubiquity Software Corporation. All unauthorized use,
disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies
of this email.  Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing signed by
an officer of Ubiquity Software Corporation, nothing in this
communication shall be deemed to be legally binding. Thank-you 

Information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee only, and may contain confidential information of Ubiquity Software Corporation.  All unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this email.  Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing signed by an officer of Ubiquity Software Corporation, nothing in this communication shall be deemed to be legally binding.  Thank you.

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:59:51 -0500

> */[Chris Boulton] I get the handset bandwidth – I have heard it in 
> almost every IETF meeting I’ve been to + I also agree it’s a major 
> consideration BUT lets not just keep harping back to it./*
> 

This is largely a bogus argument. In any multimedia conference, the 
control bandwidth is going to be a tiny fraction of the overall 
bandwidth consumed by media. It is even less likely to be a factor since 
a large part of data in conference control is likely to be text in any 
protocol, such as URI's, conference descriptions, or names.

Let's not trot out the same non-relevant arguments each time.

Henning