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

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:59:11 -0500

Hi WG,

There was a question embedded in this email from Alan to the WG with
regards to whether folks think they can implement the protocols being
familiar with the Framework, thus making it okay to make the framework
informational at this point and there's been zero responses as far as I
can tell.

I personally feel the framework is necessary to understand the context
of all the protcols and for baseline terminology (I can see great
difficulties in spreading the terminology and concepts across multiple
documents).  But, I would be okay with it being changed to Informational
IF we can get a work item chartered to provide detailed flows that we
progress as a BCP. 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Johnston [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:16 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [XCON] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt

Our working group charter lists the framework as a PS, not 
informational, and we did discuss it in Prague and agree to do that.

I do recall that in the SIPPING conferencing work, we ended up making 
the conference framework document informational and the cc-conferencing 
a BCP.  We could do something similar as Mary points out below.

A question - does the working group believe that implementors can just 
read BFCP, the common data model, the event package extension, and the 
future conference control protocol documents and be able to implement 
without reading the framework?  If so, that suggests the framework can 
be informational. If not, if there is significant overall detail in the 
framework, then we should not make it informational for the sake of 
implementors.

Thanks,
Alan

Mary Barnes wrote:
> I don't think we need a BCP right now for the flows, but once we
decide
> the Conference Control Protocol, I think a BCP with flows (e.g.,
taking
> some of the examples in the framework down to another level of detail)
> would be very useful. 
>
> Mary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:42 AM
> To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>
> sure, getting guidance from the chairs on the intended status would be

> great.
>
>   
>> I don't have any issue with changing this to informational, although,
>> having the musts, shoulds all being in examples highlights perhaps
the
>> need to have a call flow BCP type document.
>>     
>
> The protocol specs (e.g., SIP, BFCP) already specify the interactions 
> between nodes in the context of those protocols. A BCP along the lines

> you describe would be useful if the interactions between different 
> protocols would be particularly complicated (e.g., which SIP message
to 
> send when a conference is terminated through the conference control 
> protocol). However, I do not think the inter-protocol interactions we 
> are dealing with in XCON are complicated enough to grant yet another 
> specification. Or do you have a few scenarios in mind that may be 
> difficult to understand for an implementer without a document with
> examples?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:33:05 +0200

Hi Mary,

I agree with you upon the importance of the framework document, which should 
keep on being more than informational. It is my opinion that it still deals 
with relevant issues that the data model draft doesn't cover, and justly so.

Lorenzo

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, Junior Researcher
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
Phone: +390817683821 - Fax: +390817683816
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:02:51 +0300

Folks,

note that we are not discussing useless vs. useful. We are discussing 
Informational vs. Standards-track. There are a lot of documents that are 
very useful but still are Informational and not Standards-track.

Regarding generating more documents, before starting producing tons of 
tutorial material, call flows, etc., we need to understand what it is 
that is not clear for implementers.

I have asked a few implementers and all of them told me that they found 
it very useful to know the architecture the XCON WG has in mind (i.e., 
Figure 1 of the framework and its explanation). Additionally, all of 
them told me that having a 62-page document to explain such architecture 
was way too much and that they did not intend to finish reading it 
(coming back to the previous discussion, implementers read specs because 
they are useful, not because they are Standards-track or because we as a 
WG tell them to read them).

My suggestion would be to have the WG focus on finishing our chartered 
items (e.g., the policy part of the data model and the conference 
control protocol) instead of focusing of producing more and more 
examples, tutorials, call flows, etc. Once the protocol work is done, if 
we think more examples are needed and we have some energy left (so far 
the energy level we have shown is not that high), we can work on them at 
that point.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:01:05 -0500

Just a few more comments embedded below for clarification.  What I'm
taking from this thread is that most folks are okay with changing the
delivery of the framework from a standards track to an informational
document.  So, my plan is to reflect that in the -08 version of the
framework. 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); Alan Johnston
Subject: Re: [XCON] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-07.txt

Folks,

Regarding generating more documents, before starting producing tons of 
tutorial material, call flows, etc., we need to understand what it is 
that is not clear for implementers.
[MB] Just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that we start working on
the flows now, but I think if we consider the flows in the framework to
be non-normative, then I think a separate document is a must and I'm
only asking that we put it in the workplan and not that we agree to work
on it now. 
[/MB]

WG tell them to read them).
[MB] Another point for clarifiction. The example scenarios start at page
26 and end on page 48, so that's 20+ pages of detailed examples, over
half of which is diagrams for folks that are more visual learners.   6
pages (10% of the document) are change summaries that won't be in the
final RFC. The guts of what one needs to understand with regards to the
framework is covered from pages 10-26 (16 pages, 6 of which include
mostly full page diagrams), so I don't think around 10 pages of text is
too much to read for most implementers.  
[/MB]

that point.
[MB] I think we're all in agreement on the importance of moving forward.
>From the charter the next item to complete is the framework and then
there are two charter items that are believe are now subsumed into the
current data model document.  Then, we have the conference control
protocol, which I think is what most of us believe we need to be
focusing on at this point. I think the policy can fall very naturally
from this work as should detailed data flows (again for the folks that
are visual learners). [/MB]

Cheers,

Gonzalo