Subject: RE: [XCON] Oscar's Comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-01.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:45:44 -0500

Hi Oscar,
 
Thanks for reviewing the document (and your subsequent common data
model).  Responses are embedded below [MB].
 
Mary 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Oscar Novo (JO/LMF)
	Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:36 AM
	To: Morgan, Dave; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [XCON] Comments on draft-ietf-xcon-framework-01.txt

	Hi David,

	I think your comments about the framework-01 doc are really good
and I would like to give my opinion about some of them. In my case, I am
doing my Master's thesis in Conferencing and I have had some of these
questions during the last weeks.

	First of all, I agree with you about the different of
"Blueprint" and Template. They mean two different things and the
framework is mixing both terms. The definition of Template is well
defined in the Section 2, Conventions and Terminology, but Blueprint
term is not well defined in any part of the framework. 

	[MB] Per my response to Dave, we do need further WG discussion
of this topic as there is some inconsistency right now and I'll start a
separate thread on that. If we keep both terms, we do need to not use
them interchangeably.  We do introduce the term "blueprint" in the 5th
paragraph of section 3, but it's not in the basic terminology section. 

	About the proposes to change in Section 6.2 "Ad-hoc Example" the
word "copied" for "cloned" in the next paragraph:

	"The selected blueprint with its default values is copied by the
client into a newly created Conference Object, ..." 

	I think is very important to understand the different between
clone and copy. As I understand (at least in programming is like that),
clone does a shallow copy, not a deep copy. So it just returns a
reference to the original copy unlike in Deep copy where a duplicate
instance is created. Any changes made to the clone will be reflected in
the original copy and vice versa. 

	So, if you decide to write "cloned" instead of "copied" I think
it is very important to specify what exactly is doing the cloning and
how it works in the conference framework. 

	[MB] We seem to have varying views on what term is more
appropriate.  In the more general sense cloning is used to refer to a
creation of something new that is an exact copy of an existing entity.
Per my response to Dave, we'll start a separate thread to resolve this.

	I also agree with David about the big different between the
SIPPING and the XCON frameworks. One of the big different is the
conference object entity, looking to the
draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-05.txt no conference object is
described at all. It would be nice if the authors of the frameworks iron
out the major different between both frameworks. 

	[MB] I did have a detailed response to Dave on this point as
well that I won't repeat in it's entirety here, but I don't think we can
make many changes to align the two, particularly since the conference
object is key to the XCON FW model and the addition of it to the SIPPING
conferencing framework at this time is likely not possible, given that
doc is in the RFC Editor's Q.  

	Thanks

	Oscar Novo 

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