Subject: [XCON] Consensus Call: CCMP Muting interaction with BFCP

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0500

[as chair]

At the face-to-face meeting in Stockholm, we discussed the interaction 
between muting conditions created by CCMP and the muting conditions 
created by BFCP. The question was whether these manipulated a single 
muting state (which would imply that a CCMP unmute operation would 
override the muting imposed by not having the floor in BFCP), or whether 
these operations operated on independent muting states (both of which 
must be unmuted for media to be contributed to the conference).

The consensus among those in attendance was that the protocols operated 
on independent muting states.

If you have an opinion on this topic -- either in support of that 
consensus or in opposition to it -- please express it on the mailing list.

/a

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:20:53 -0400

I agree that BFCP and CCMP should operate independently in this respect.

A related question, though, is that CCMP (via the common data model) seems
to have multiple ways of muting a user.  Do the
endpoint/media/status=recvonly and
endpoint/media/controls/to-mixer/mute=true states operate independently?
Are the authorization requirements for the two expected to be different?

(I'm in general perplexed about the to-mixer and from-mixer controls in the
common data model -- is the presence of "VideoIn" and "VideoOut" mixers
inside a media/type=audio block in the example in common-data-model-13 an
error?  If not, what does it mean?)

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
[email-masked] / [email-masked]

---

From: "Oscar Novo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:00:51 +0200

Hello Jonathan,

Note that the data model defines multiple elements of doing the same
things. It's up to the conferencing system to correlate those elements
in the proper way.

And, Good catch! The VideoIn and VideoOut values in the example are an
error indeed.
I'll fix it in a next version of the data model.

Thanks Jonathan!

Oscar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 5. elokuuta 2009 19:21
To: XCON-IETF
Subject: Re: [XCON] Consensus Call: CCMP Muting interaction with BFCP

A related question, though, is that CCMP (via the common data model)
seems to have multiple ways of muting a user.  Do the
endpoint/media/status=recvonly and
endpoint/media/controls/to-mixer/mute=true states operate independently?
Are the authorization requirements for the two expected to be different?

(I'm in general perplexed about the to-mixer and from-mixer controls in
the common data model -- is the presence of "VideoIn" and "VideoOut"
mixers inside a media/type=audio block in the example in
common-data-model-13 an error?  If not, what does it mean?)

> override the muting imposed by not having the floor in BFCP), or 
> whether these operations operated on independent muting states (both 
> of which must be unmuted for media to be contributed to the
conference).
> 
> The consensus among those in attendance was that the protocols 
> operated on independent muting states.
> 
_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon