Subject: RE: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:21:49 -0600

Roni,

Thanks for the feedback, which has been incorporated into the -01.
Hopefully, we've also addressed your last concern around the
display-name by adding that as a recommendation (in section 5).

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Even, Roni [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00

Hi
You had the following question in the draft

1. How much normative detail do we need to include in this document for
the conference user identifier? 
RE: My view is minimum

2. Or are the details of the conference user identifier implementation
specific and we just need to provide examples? 

RE: Just provide examples that will give some guidelines to how to
specify users that are defined at conference reservation via XCON and
how to give identity to unspecified users who dial the conference and
join.

3. Does the definition require that the mapping to the user ids for
other protocols be obvious (e.g., visibly derivable or would that be
implementation specific? 

RE: Like question 2, give some guidelines.

In general the user identifier is internal to the XCON document; also be
aware that the user may be unknown when defining the conference, this is
typical for participants who will dial to the conference, their identity
will appear in the conference roster based on something like "asserted
identity".

BTW: What about specifying non-English display names, suggest to add
display name field to the URI.

Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00
> 
> Per discussions at IETF-67, here's the reminder that we'd like
feedback
> on this draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00.txt
> 
> The conference user concept is introduced in the framework to identify
> the entity participating in a conference and manipulating
> conferencing system related properties.  This document defines a
> Conference User Identifier and syntax for identifying a specific
> conference user within a conferencing system.  The document also
> describes the logical mapping of this conference user identifier to
> protocol and signaling interface specific user identifiers.
> 
> The questions are around how prescriptive we need to be in XCON
> specifications as to the allocation, distribution and definiton of
this
> identifier or would this all just be purely informational.   This
> concept has been part of the framework from day one and it does seem
to
> be an important concept and something that should be part of the basic
> data model, as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mary
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
************************************************************************
**
> **********
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
> viruses.
************************************************************************
**
> **********

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

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:21:58 -0600

Srivatsa,

Sorry for the late reply :)  As far as endpoints being identified, I
think that's already covered in the data model and I don't think it
needs to be addressed in this document.   Or, do folks think that
relationship also needs to be described? 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Srivatsa Srinivasan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:33 AM
To: 'Even, Roni'; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [XCON] Feedback requested: draft-boulton-xcon-userid-00

Sorry for the late comments. Agree with Roni on most of what was said
below. I do not see why the mapping from user identifier to user id has
to be strictly (normatively) specified. The data model could be modified
to include the URIs that correspond to a specific user id. This could be
easily accomplished by simply having a <conf-uris>-like container
element (with the asserted identities for that user) under the <user>
element such that automata can then use the mapping as necessary.

On the same topic, how are endpoints under the user identified? In the
case of SIP, the endpoint entity could be a simple numeric number (an
endpoint id, unique within the conference) and the SIP URI corresponding
to that could be a GRUU. The data model could be modified to include
this SIP URI corresponding to the endpoint id. One use (albeit not
great) of such an id is to use it as the RTP CNAME in cases where the
RTP SSRC cannot be used to indicate active speaker. There could be other
uses as well.

Srivatsa.

> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:28 AM
> To: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
> > specifications as to the allocation, distribution and definition of
> this
***********************************************************************
> *
***********************************************************************
> *