Subject: [XCON] RE: More comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:07:57 +0100

[Chris Boulton] some comments in-line.

Chris.

Hi Oscar,

Thanks for your comments. My responses are below [MB].  

Mary 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Oscar Novo (JO/LMF) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:38 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
	Subject: More comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt

	And here a bit more comments on the framework: 

	-The framework defines the data model as a "common conference
information". When we had the templates this concept was right but now I
think this concept is not correct. I propose to change the name to
"Conference Information Data Model" as is defined in the data model
draft. 

	[MB] Given we're post-WGLC, I'd prefer to have additional
feedback before making this change as I think the Common Conference
Information is a general enough concept and I think that change impacts
a whole lot of text and I'd be concerned that I'd break more than I
might fix with that change. [/MB]

	[Chris Boulton] While I can see what Oscar is saying I agree
with Mary.  At the end of the day this is STILL common information that
is shared by all conference instances.  The fact that we no longer have
templates is irrelevant - it just changes the context slightly.  I would
keep it as is.

	- I think section 5.1 is a bit messy. It still have concepts
about the templates. I have re-written a bit that section to adapted it
to the data model idea:  

	New centralized conferencing specifications can extend the
conference information data model type as defined in [17] and introduce
additional data elements to be used within the conference information
data model type."

	- In the 'conferencing scenario realizations' section when a
user "Alice" creates a sidebar conference. Is "Alice" included in the
sidebar conference as a user? Reading the text looks like "Alice" is
included in the sidebar but checking the figures looks like she is not
part of the sidebar conference.  

	[MB]  I'm not sure which figure you're referring to.  In Figures
12 and 13, I guess we could debate whether "Alice" should show up in the
Reservation, but "Alice" is shown in the "Active Sidebar Conference" in
both Figures. Is that the figures you're referring to? [/MB] 

	- I'm a bit confuse with the use case explain in section 9.6
'Whispering or Private Messages'. As I understood whispering is a
participant who send a one-way message to a single participant. RFC 4597
defines whispers or private messages as follow:

	"A participant can send a one-way message (text, audio, or even
some other media) to another participant that is immediately rendered.
This differs from a sidebar in that it is immediate and creates no
long-lived session."

	The framework is defining whispering in a different way: "one
participant sends a message to multiple participants using sidebars".
For me, that definition is not connect to 'whispering or private
messages' but instead to 'sidebars'.  

	[MB] No, I don't think the framework really defines the
whispering in a different way - it does further refine that definition
in the context of the fraamework. We define "whisper" in section 4 as:

	      "A whisper involves a one-time media input to a specific
	      participant(s) within a specific conference instance,
accomplished
	      using a sidebar.  An example of a whisper would be an
announcement
	      injected only to the conference chair or to a new
participant
	      joining a conference."

	So, I think that's consistent with the definition in 4597 in
that, per the example, the sidebar is immediately removed after
delivering that onetime media.  

	[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

	As background, the definition was added in the -05, with other
text added to the document on whisper added in the -03 based on WG
discussions. I'd have to dig to find those threads, but am reluctant to
re-open past discussions without additional input from others in the WG.
[/MB]

	[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

	As well, the use case defined in 9.6 is very confused. Why do we
need to create a sidebar and a conference ID to send a single private
message to a user? It doesn't make any sense for me. If the participant
knows the userID, he could send the whispering message straight to his
friend without create any sidebar, conferenceID or notification message.

	[MB] This use case was added in the -05 version based on input
from a WG member and is consistent with the WG consensus on the
definition of whisper (which is based on a sidebar) and as I'm recalling
we did have this long, long debate. [/MB]

	[Chris Boulton] Also agreed.

	 - Section 9.9 'Observing and Coaching'. Is it necesary to
create a sidebar for observing a conference? Couldn't be the observer in
the conference a 'hidden' participant? As far as you notify the other
participant that the conference is recorded or observed by a third party
I guess it's OK, right? 

	[MB] And, that's exactly what the text says - you can accomplish
the observing functionality by just having the supervisor as a hidden
participant, which is what the first two paragraphs of that section
discuss. It then describes that to take that functionality one step
further to handle the coaching:

	  " Taking the supervisor capability one step further introduces
a
	   scenario whereby the agent can hear the supervisor, as well
as the
	   customer.  The customer can still only hear the agent.  This
scenario
	   would involve the creation of a sidebar involving the agent
and the
	   supervisor. "

	[/MB] 

	- I think the intended status of the framework should be
Standard track, no informational as it is now.  

	[MB] Agreed, per previous email discussions - I'll make that
change with other nits and add that categorization to the header.  [/MB]

	[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

	- The user identifier and the XCON identifier are defined now in
the data model. The references to those draft should be removed from the
Framework or should reference to the data model instead. 

	[MB] Agreed per discussions at IETF-68.

	Nits:  

	[MB] Thanks - I'll take care of these on the next update.  

	In some places you are using "signaling" in other "signalling". 

	Figure 2: Change "Common conference information type" for
"Conference Information Data Model type" 
	Figure 10: It's missing the clients usernames "Carol" and "Bob".

	Figure 13: When Alice creates the sidebar only includes one
"confUserID". She should include at least "Bob", "Ethel" and "Carol"
user ID.

	Figure 16: No sidebars are created in this uses case. So,
"Active Sidebar Conference" should be change in the picture to "Active
Conference".

	Change in the text: 

	Cbject -> Object 
	Identifer-> Identifier 
	"And the the conference object is updated" -> "And the
conference object is updated" 
	"Object identifier as as shown in Figure 11" -> "Object
identifier as shown in Figure 11" 
	"can be handled by by supervisor adding" -> "can be handled by
supervisor adding" 

	Cheers, 

	Oscar Novo 

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. Ubiquity Software Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales, Registration 2719723, registered offices at Eastern Business Park, Building 3, Wern Fawr Lane, St. Mellons, Cardiff CF3 5EA, Wales, United Kingdom.

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

---

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:20:20 +0100

[Chris Boulton] In-line.

Hi Oscar,

Responses embedded below [MB].

Thanks,

Mary 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Oscar Novo (JO/LMF) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:57 AM
	To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: More comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt

	Hi Mary, 

	I have just a coupled of comments.

	- I still think the replacement of the "common conference
information" for "conference information data model" is important. Now,
this concept is only defined in the framework and it can be very
confusing for the readers. I don't think the substitution of this term
will impact the whole text. In the framework you have this term only in
20 places, mainly in the 'terminology' and the 'centralized conferencing
data model' section. 

	[MB] I do understand how the term "common" has lost its original
context since we no longer have the templates, thus there's only one set
of information. But, a global replacement won't work quite right, at
least in terms of the basic definition, where the "common conference
information" is defined as: 

	   " The common
	      conference information is the data type (i.e., the XML
schema) for
	      a conference object".  

	How about we just drop the phrase "common" and refer to it as
"Conference Information"?

	[/MB]

	[Chris Boulton] I'm OK with that.