Subject: RE: [XCON] WGLC: draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06

From: "Braudes, Robert \(Bob\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:00:32 -0500

I have two small nits and a few questions and comments.  The first nit
is that I believe that in Section 8.4, Floor Control, in the last
sentence in the fifth paragraph, "conference identifier" is supposed to
be "conference user identifier".

A related question, which perhaps should be directed to
draft-boutlon-xcon-userid-00, is whether conference user IDs are unique
across a conferencing system or just within a given conference (and
probably sidebars off of that conference).  Having the id have a
conference scope will allow a user to have different roles for different
conferences, distinguished by his/her conference user ID.  I can see
arguments to implement this either way, and suggest that we leave this
up to the policy of the conferencing system.  

One question is in relation to section 9.4, Sidebar Manipulations.  In
this section, it is mentioned  that no members from outside the parent
conference instance can join a sidebar.  Given the text in Section 9.4.1
that discusses whether or not "Bob" is a new user of this conferencing
system, and the example in 9.4.2 of an External Sidebar, I am assuming
that the statement of only allowing members of the parent conference is
a local policy decision, and if so then this could be clarified in the
draft.

Another minor point is that in the examples that include the
notification service, the person that initiated the action that caused
the notification is not listed as a recipient of the notification.  In
practice, the event is often sent to all registered listeners, including
the listener who triggered the event.

In Section 9.5, it may be beneficial to add a note that when Analyst A1
asks his question, other members of the main conference will not hear
the question, unless I am missing something.

The second nit is that in the fourth paragraph of Section 9.9 it should
say "coaching".

I apologize in advance if any of these issues have been previously
discussed.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 4:26 PM
To: XCON-IETF
Cc: Mary Barnes; Alan Johnston
Subject: [XCON] WGLC: draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06

The working group chairs are announcing a two-week Working Group Last
Call for the XCON Framework Document (draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06),
starting today. It will continue until Wednesday, December 20th.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06.txt

Please send any comments to the XCON mailing list.

Thanks!

/a

_______________________________________________
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: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:01:25 -0600

Bob,

Thanks for your comments and reviewing the document - responses are
embedded below [MB].

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Braudes, Robert (Bob) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Adam Roach; XCON-IETF
Cc: Mary Barnes; Alan Johnston
Subject: RE: [XCON] WGLC: draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06

[MB] Yes, I will fix that. 

[MB] From the text in section 6.3 (and the boulton draft), it seems
clear that the conference user identifier is specified to be unique
across a conferencing system. I think that's necessary to account for
users that aren't participants in an active conference, but that might
still be able to manipulate a conference.  We didn't, however, include a
definition upfront (in section 4) for the Conference User Identifier.  
I would propose we add a definition like the following to section 4:
NEW:
Conference User Identifer:  A unique identifer for a user within the
scope of a
   conferencing system.  
[/MB]

One question is in relation to section 9.4, Sidebar Manipulations.  In
this section, it is mentioned  that no members from outside the parent
conference instance can join a sidebar.  Given the text in Section 9.4.1
that discusses whether or not "Bob" is a new user of this conferencing
system, and the example in 9.4.2 of an External Sidebar, I am assuming
that the statement of only allowing members of the parent conference is
a local policy decision, and if so then this could be clarified in the
draft.
[MB] Yes, the last sentence in the second paragraph of section 9.4 gives
as an example a policy that restricts the membership of the sidebar to
members of the parent conference and this is provided as an example of
an "internal" sidebar in section 9.4.1.  So, the text in section 9.4.1
(the last two sentences in the second to last paragraph) should be
corrected to reflect that no members from outside the parent conference
can join an internal sidebar.  I'd propose the following change:
OLD:
  The conferencing system must also validate the updated information in
the reservation, 
  ensuring whether members like "Bob" are already a user of this
conferencing system 
  or whether he is a new user. If "Bob" is a new user for this
conferencing system, a 
  conference user identifier is created for Bob.  Based upon the
addressing information 
  provided for "Bob" by "Alice", the call signaling to add "Bob" to the
conference is 
  instigated through the Focus.   
NEW: 
  The conferencing system must also validate the updated information in
the reservation, 
  ensuring that a member like "Bob" is already a user of this
conferencing system. 
[/MB]

Another minor point is that in the examples that include the
notification service, the person that initiated the action that caused
the notification is not listed as a recipient of the notification.  In
practice, the event is often sent to all registered listeners, including
the listener who triggered the event.
[MB] Yes, this is an oversight and it should at least be mentioned that
the initiator could also be notified.  I propose to change the following
statement to account for this (this is (similar to) the last sentence in
the last paragraph in sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2 and 9.7):
OLD:
  Depending upon the policies, the participants in the sidebar (i.e.,
"Bob") may be notified 
  of his addition to the sidebar via the conference notification
service. 

NEW:
  Depending upon the policies, the initiator of the request (i.e.,
"Alice") and the 
  participants in the sidebar (i.e., "Bob") may be notified 
  of his addition to the sidebar via the conference notification
service. 
[/MB]

In Section 9.5, it may be beneficial to add a note that when Analyst A1
asks his question, other members of the main conference will not hear
the question, unless I am missing something.
[MB] I think the main conference would hear the question. However, I
think the sentence in the paragraph just prior to Figure 14 might have
been intended to say that all participants in the main conference
receive the audio from the sidebar, as well as the main conference, so
I'd propose the following change:
OLD:
  All participants in the sidebar conference receive audio from the main
conference.

NEW: 
  All participants in the main conference receive audio from the sidebar
conference, as well as 
  audio provided by the panelists in the main conference. 
[/MB]

[MB] Yes, I'll fix that. 

I apologize in advance if any of these issues have been previously
discussed.
[MB] No, these are all new points and worth discussing as alot of this
is in newer sections and text which had not been reviewed during past
detailed reviews.
[/MB]

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 4:26 PM
To: XCON-IETF
Cc: Mary Barnes; Alan Johnston
Subject: [XCON] WGLC: draft-ietf-xcon-framework-06

Thanks!

/a