Subject: Re: [siprec] Consensus calls arising from interim meeting - closes 2011-06-30

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:17:12 +0200

I saw no objections to these consensus calls. So I would ask the metadata draft editors please to incorporate in the next (merged) version. 

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John 
> Sent: 24 June 2011 10:58
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Consensus calls arising from interim meeting - 
> closes 2011-06-30
> 
> On yesterday's call there was consensus on a number of items. 
> These need to be confirmed. Please say by 2011-06-30 if you 
> object to any of the following:
> 
> 1. We will use a globally unique identifier for a MS object. 
> Although some people felt that an MS would not normally have 
> a lifetime outside the lifetime of a CS, and therefore a 
> local ID might suffice, some felt that there might be some 
> corner cases that might benefit from a global ID. So the 
> consensus on the call was for a global ID, although most 
> anticipated uses of an MS element would be in the context of 
> a single CS. Note that the nature of the globally unique ID 
> is still open.
> 
> 2. The content of an MS object will be described in terms of 
> value from the RFC 4796 registry. Note that how this is 
> conveyed (in metadata XML or in RS SDP) is still open. Note 
> also that if additional values are found to be necessary, 
> these could be defined by the appropriate means.
> 
> 3. Extension data will be made part of the parent element, 
> and not a separate element. Therefore it will not require its 
> own unique ID.
> 
> 
> John
>