Subject: RE: URGENT REMINDER: [XCON] Conference Control: Path Forward

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:13:57 -0600

Sorry, I had read the previous email as merely summarizing the WG
discussion in Vancouver, however, upon re-reading I can see the need for
discussion.  I agree with the general approach for the way forward.  I
have a process question around Item 2, as to whether there's a deadline
for that summary.  Were you expecting that summary prior to Dec 31st
(i.e. are you wanting folks to let you know right now whether they'll be
submitting proposals for that deadline)?  Or is that something that can
be submitted around the same time as the protocol is submitted for
discussion?  

My understanding is that we have 2 fairly concrete proposals on the
table: CCCP and CSCP, with a potential 3rd protocol based on SOAP that
some of us are interested in evolving, provided we can eek out the time
to put something more detailed together.   

I'll start a separate thread to discuss in more detail some requirements
for the protocol.  

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:22 PM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: XCON-IETF
Subject: URGENT REMINDER: [XCON] Conference Control: Path Forward

[as chair]

If anyone in the working group cares about the protocol we end up 
selecting for conference control -- or, indeed, finishing our work at 
all -- they are strongly advised to participate in this conversation. If

we can't get any participation around our deliverables, we really have 
no choice but to shut the working group down.

/a

Adam Roach wrote:

> [as chair]
>
> In Vancouver, the XCON chairs outlined a process by which we would 
> attempt to meet our proposed milestones. This message summarizes that 
> process, as amended by the input we received from the XCON
participants.
>
>   1. Proposals for candidates for the Conference Control Protocol
(CCP)
>      must be submitted in internet-draft format no later than December
>      31st, 2005. The draft does not need to be complete; however,
there
>      must be sufficient detail to make clear how the proposed protocol
>      would be used to modify information in both the Common Conference
>      Information and Conference Template. (See
>      draft-ietf-xcon-framework for definitions).
>
>   2. All protocols to be considered additionally need a brief message
>      from an author and/or proponent of the corresponding draft that
>      explains the design decisions taken in the design of the
protocol,
>      as well as a summary of strengths and drawbacks of the approach.
>      Such proponents should contact the XCON chairs to coordinate.
>          * Such proponents should discuss implementation lessons, if
>            available, around using their proposed protocol to modify
>            the Common Conference Information.
>          * Separately, such proponents should additionally discuss
>            implementation lessons, if available, around using their
>            proposed protocol to modify the Conference Template.
>
>   3. Starting in early January, the chairs will call for discussion on
>      the mailing list to gauge the overall direction the working group
>      wishes to proceed.
>
>   4. Between now and January, interested parties should discuss their
>      requirements around the CCP on the mailing list. These
discussions
>      should assist in coming to consensus on the CCP that XCON will
use.
>
> Hopefully, the result of the January discussions will resolve to a 
> single approach (either by selection of one of the proposals or by 
> combining one or more of them into a unified proposal).
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>

_______________________________________________
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: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:20:08 -0600

Mary Barnes wrote:

>I have a process question around Item 2, as to whether there's a deadline

I think submitting something around the same time as the proposal is 
appropriate. Ideally, the single proponent for each proposal should send 
an email to the chairs so we'll know who to expect information from (and 
who to remind if necessary) near the end of the year.

/a

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:37:33 +0200

As for the process: this seems reasonable.  The only thing possibly
missing is a measure on the actual support and review the proposals
and ultimately the WG document will get so that discussions and
a decision will be well-founded (item 3 and beyond).  This is
just in reaction to the lack of response to your last email
(which, like Mary, I also read as summary not requiring action).

We have tried conference control for a few times in the IETF.
This time, finally, I thought there should be sufficient motivation...

And somewhat off-topic:

Can we please rename CCCP now or in the final version (if it comes
to one)?  People should be aware that CCCP stands for a distributed
(multicast-based) conference control protocol developed in the mid
1990s in the context of Mbone applications (published at SIGCOMM 1995).

Since this is a totally different approach in the same area, we
should not re-use the acronym (or at least pretend that we have
been doing our review of past work in that space and put a
reference and a corresponding statement into the draft).

(Some time back I thought CCCP was merely kept as the draft name
rather than protocol name; this is why I did not speak up earlier.)

Cheers,
Joerg