Subject: RE: [XCON] Conference Control

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:28:01 -0000

Compared to implementing the logic of conference control, the 
encapsulation is a tiny fraction of the work, particularly given that 
you can get SOAP stacks pre-packaged for almost any conceivable platform 
and language, mobile or otherwise. (A SOAP client is nothing more than a 
bit of XML on top of HTTP, so you don't even need a stack, just an XML 
parser and an HTTP client library, both of which any SIP-speaking device 
will need in any event.)

[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

Thus, I don't think this is much of a differentiator.

[Chris Boulton] Either way - I am fed up of it being 'the only' differentiator.

Oscar Novo (JO/LMF) wrote:
> I think it´s quite obvious. :)
> But anyway, still all the systems have to implement the SOAP protocol 
>  from the scratch and this is not the case of CSCP even if the systems 
> that support the BFCP are low. 

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

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: "Sean Olson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:26:16 -0800

I think Chris' proposal is very reasonable. Why is this an either-or discussion? Why not allow multiple bindings? I think it would be a mistake to create a least common denominator approach to satisfy the constraints of CPU/bandwidth limited devices.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Chris Boulton
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [XCON] Conference Control

Compared to implementing the logic of conference control, the encapsulation is a tiny fraction of the work, particularly given that you can get SOAP stacks pre-packaged for almost any conceivable platform and language, mobile or otherwise. (A SOAP client is nothing more than a bit of XML on top of HTTP, so you don't even need a stack, just an XML parser and an HTTP client library, both of which any SIP-speaking device will need in any event.)

[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:29:04 -0500

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with multiple bindings as long as
the underlying data structures and operations are the same.

I think having a protocol that had both a SOAP binding, and something fast
and small, especially for the typical operations, is a good thing.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sean
Olson
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:26 PM
To: Chris Boulton; Henning Schulzrinne; Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [XCON] Conference Control

I think Chris' proposal is very reasonable. Why is this an either-or
discussion? Why not allow multiple bindings? I think it would be a mistake
to create a least common denominator approach to satisfy the constraints of
CPU/bandwidth limited devices.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Chris Boulton
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [XCON] Conference Control

Compared to implementing the logic of conference control, the encapsulation
is a tiny fraction of the work, particularly given that you can get SOAP
stacks pre-packaged for almost any conceivable platform and language, mobile
or otherwise. (A SOAP client is nothing more than a bit of XML on top of
HTTP, so you don't even need a stack, just an XML parser and an HTTP client
library, both of which any SIP-speaking device will need in any event.)

[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

[Chris Boulton] Either way - I am fed up of it being 'the only'
differentiator.

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.