From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 17:16:27 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH4wM-00040M-U2; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:16:26 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JH4wL-00040A-6T for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:16:25 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH4wK-000402-Ro for xcon@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:16:24 -0500 Received: from shaman.nostrum.com ([72.232.15.10] helo=nostrum.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH4wK-0002vu-IB for xcon@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:16:24 -0500 Received: from orthrus.local (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0LMGNNU066155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:16:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) Message-ID: <479519B7.7080600@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:16:23 -0600 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XCON-IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5512/Mon Jan 21 15:44:39 2008 on shaman.nostrum.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: [XCON] First Call: Agenda Requests X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org [as chair] It's coming up on that time... we have just over a month to get our working group agenda pulled together. If you plan to have something to discuss in Philly, please send me and Alan an email so we can know what to plan for. Part of the reason I'm asking somewhat earlier this time is that there has been no discussion on the mailing list recently -- if we don't have anything to talk about, we'll need to give up the face-to-face slot to make resolving schedule conflicts easier. /a _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 09:20:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgT7-0006mT-1E; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:45 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgT5-0006mM-Js for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:43 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgT5-0006mB-78 for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:43 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgT2-0008JD-PU for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:20:41 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D36E5214D4 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:20:39 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-abdeabb0000007e1-b5-47974d37bee6 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id C2D512149A for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:20:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:20:39 +0100 Received: from [131.160.37.21] ([131.160.37.21]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:20:39 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XCON Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2008 14:20:39.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[2110C2F0:01C85DCB] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Subject: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi, as you know, the XCON data model is an extension of the format in the SIP event package for conference state specification [RFC 4575]. RFC 4575 also specifies a partial notification mechanism that also applies to the XCON event package, given that the XCON data model is an extension of the data format defined in RFC 4575. The thing is that, at present, there is a general partial notification mechanism that is defined in the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-04.txt The XCON event package could be defined to use the conference-specific partial notification mechanism as the default and the newer and more general one as optional. I believe this is something the WG should consider doing. However, for documentation purposes, I would suggest that we do not include this type of partial notification in the XCON event package. Let's specify the event package first and, later, if there is enough energy in the WG, we can put together a new draft describing how to use XML patch operations with the XCON event package. Comments? Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 05:04:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK9nq-0002WK-Gg; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:04:22 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JK9np-0002WE-8A for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:04:21 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK9no-0002W5-UJ for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:04:20 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK9nm-0004Nm-JQ for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:04:20 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 05E12204B7 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:18 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-a9aebbb0000007e0-38-47a04ba18016 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id EC1E020752 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:17 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.58] ([131.160.126.58]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:16 +0100 Message-ID: <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:04:15 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XCON Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 10:04:17.0079 (UTC) FILETIME=[7958B470:01C86327] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I have double checked the data model and the current event package draft and it seems that the plan was to define a partial notification mechanism based on the mechanism defined in RFC 4575 in the event package draft. I believe that, instead of basing our partial notification mechanism on RFC 4575, we should use xml patch operations instead. What do people think about this? If we decide to use xml patch operations, do we want to make its support mandatory or optional (i.e., one or two MIME types)? Cheers, Gonzalo Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > as you know, the XCON data model is an extension of the format in the > SIP event package for conference state specification [RFC 4575]. RFC > 4575 also specifies a partial notification mechanism that also applies > to the XCON event package, given that the XCON data model is an > extension of the data format defined in RFC 4575. > > The thing is that, at present, there is a general partial notification > mechanism that is defined in the following draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-04.txt > > The XCON event package could be defined to use the conference-specific > partial notification mechanism as the default and the newer and more > general one as optional. I believe this is something the WG should > consider doing. However, for documentation purposes, I would suggest > that we do not include this type of partial notification in the XCON > event package. Let's specify the event package first and, later, if > there is enough energy in the WG, we can put together a new draft > describing how to use XML patch operations with the XCON event package. > > Comments? > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > _______________________________________________ > XCON mailing list > XCON@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 06:27:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKB5u-00024y-Of; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:27:06 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKB5t-00024m-Rt for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:27:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKB5t-00024V-Hp for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:27:05 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKB5s-00062E-B0 for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:27:05 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 70850211AB for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:27:01 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-aaaedbb0000007e0-f0-47a05f05b172 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 55D93211F9 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:27:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:26:51 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:26:51 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77E62461; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:51 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2E34DC59; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:50 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F044E4DB34; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:49 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package From: Oscar Novo To: Gonzalo Camarillo In-Reply-To: <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:27:25 +0200 Message-Id: <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 11:26:51.0676 (UTC) FILETIME=[028435C0:01C86333] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I believe xml patch operations are much more efficient than the partial notification method defined in RFC4575 but (as well) I believe the XCON event package should be 100% backward compatible with RFC4575. So, I would say to use the xml patch operations as optional (improvement of the old method) in XCON using a different MIME type. Oscar On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:04 +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > I have double checked the data model and the current event package draft > and it seems that the plan was to define a partial notification > mechanism based on the mechanism defined in RFC 4575 in the event > package draft. > > I believe that, instead of basing our partial notification mechanism on > RFC 4575, we should use xml patch operations instead. What do people > think about this? > > If we decide to use xml patch operations, do we want to make its support > mandatory or optional (i.e., one or two MIME types)? > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > > Hi, > > > > as you know, the XCON data model is an extension of the format in the > > SIP event package for conference state specification [RFC 4575]. RFC > > 4575 also specifies a partial notification mechanism that also applies > > to the XCON event package, given that the XCON data model is an > > extension of the data format defined in RFC 4575. > > > > The thing is that, at present, there is a general partial notification > > mechanism that is defined in the following draft: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-04.txt > > > > The XCON event package could be defined to use the conference-specific > > partial notification mechanism as the default and the newer and more > > general one as optional. I believe this is something the WG should > > consider doing. However, for documentation purposes, I would suggest > > that we do not include this type of partial notification in the XCON > > event package. Let's specify the event package first and, later, if > > there is enough energy in the WG, we can put together a new draft > > describing how to use XML patch operations with the XCON event package. > > > > Comments? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > XCON mailing list > > XCON@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > XCON mailing list > XCON@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 06:36:40 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKBFA-0007iD-2C; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:36:40 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKBF8-0007i6-OC for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:36:38 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKBF8-0007hx-Dl for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:36:38 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKBF7-0000rT-VX for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:36:38 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 9456921B62 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:30:52 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab5e9bb0000007e1-14-47a05fecefc5 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8394621B5C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:30:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:30:52 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.58] ([131.160.126.58]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:30:51 +0100 Message-ID: <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:30:50 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oscar Novo Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> In-Reply-To: <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 11:30:51.0926 (UTC) FILETIME=[91B77360:01C86333] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi Oscar > I believe xml patch operations are much more efficient than the partial > notification method defined in RFC4575 but (as well) I believe the XCON > event package should be 100% backward compatible with RFC4575. what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean that we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 07:42:50 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCHC-0001VJ-4s; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:42:50 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCHA-0001JG-MJ for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:42:48 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCHA-0001GL-B0 for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:42:48 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCH9-00088c-OE for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:42:48 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 28B3A20BB4 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:42:47 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-aaaedbb0000007e0-6c-47a070c7a919 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 168472067C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:42:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:42:46 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:42:46 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659932461; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:42:46 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD6E4DC59; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:42:45 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8784DB34; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:42:44 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package From: Oscar Novo To: Gonzalo Camarillo In-Reply-To: <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:43:20 +0200 Message-Id: <1201697000.6497.36.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 12:42:46.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D58DA60:01C8633D] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. Oscar > what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean that > we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 12:00:41 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGIi-0001p0-Ou; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:00:40 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGId-0001f9-A8 for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:00:35 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGIc-0001dH-LX for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:00:34 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGIc-0007Ps-9U for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:00:34 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6375921095 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:52 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab5e9bb0000007e1-78-47a0ad081492 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4CCFD204B3 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:52 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.11] ([131.160.126.11]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:51 +0100 Message-ID: <47A0AD06.6090905@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:59:50 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oscar Novo Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> <1201697000.6497.36.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> In-Reply-To: <1201697000.6497.36.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 16:59:51.0917 (UTC) FILETIME=[87AB09D0:01C86361] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi, the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a new MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new one for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? Cheers, Gonzalo Oscar Novo wrote: > Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a > different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. > > Oscar > >> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean that >> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 12:06:41 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGOW-0000dp-KS; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:40 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGOV-0000d5-6j for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGOU-0000cj-SI for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:38 -0500 Received: from fw.polycom.co.il ([212.179.41.2] helo=isrexch01.israel.polycom.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGOS-00029z-CN for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:38 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:48 +0200 Message-ID: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1711@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> In-Reply-To: <47A0AD06.6090905@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package Thread-Index: AchjYbn6SwITzhZLSS+x+/rTnSetSgAADvbA From: "Even, Roni" To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" , "Oscar Novo" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Gonzalo, The concern was that the server needs to allow SIPPING client supporting = the current event package and XCON client supporting the new data = structure to receive notifications. The full notification will be different for the two cases since there = are different data models. So my view is that you need two different = types enabling to request full notification for SIPPING and for XCON = users Roni=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:00 PM > To: Oscar Novo > Cc: XCON > Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package >=20 > Hi, >=20 > the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a = new > MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state > attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state > attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old > MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new = one > for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. >=20 > Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Gonzalo >=20 >=20 > Oscar Novo wrote: > > Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a > > different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. > > > > Oscar > > > >> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean > that > >> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > XCON mailing list > XCON@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 12:11:53 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGTZ-0002xx-5H; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:53 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGTX-0002vE-P5 for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:51 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGTX-0002os-7H for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:51 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGTW-0008Qp-H4 for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:51 -0500 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B8A6020DAD; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:11:49 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-a9aebbb0000007e0-7c-47a0afd5d91d Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A6323209AC; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:11:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:11:49 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.11] ([131.160.126.11]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:11:48 +0100 Message-ID: <47A0AFD4.7020508@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:11:48 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Even, Roni" Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1711@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> In-Reply-To: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1711@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 17:11:49.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[331586A0:01C86363] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi Roni, the problem with reusing the old MIME type for full XCON notifications is that a server may send notifications with a set of XML elements the legacy client will not understand (i.e., the new elements defined by the XCON data model). The client will ignore them and everything will work fine. However, bandwidth will be wasted because all those new elements will be transmitted to simply be ignored at their destination. Do you see any other problem in addition to this bandwidth problem? Thanks, Gonzalo Even, Roni wrote: > Gonzalo, > The concern was that the server needs to allow SIPPING client supporting the current event package and XCON client supporting the new data structure to receive notifications. > > The full notification will be different for the two cases since there are different data models. So my view is that you need two different types enabling to request full notification for SIPPING and for XCON users > > > Roni > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:00 PM >> To: Oscar Novo >> Cc: XCON >> Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package >> >> Hi, >> >> the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a new >> MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state >> attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state >> attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old >> MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new one >> for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. >> >> Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> Oscar Novo wrote: >>> Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a >>> different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. >>> >>> Oscar >>> >>>> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean >> that >>>> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> XCON mailing list >> XCON@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 13:01:07 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHFB-0004j2-Px; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:01:05 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHFA-0004ih-9w for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:01:04 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHF9-0004iY-WC for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:01:04 -0500 Received: from fw.polycom.co.il ([212.179.41.2] helo=isrexch01.israel.polycom.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHF9-00041O-8H for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:01:03 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:01:13 +0200 Message-ID: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1721@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> In-Reply-To: <47A0AFD4.7020508@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package Thread-Index: AchjY0BLnYHgv8EASu6ub6QG2r1IJwABqTMg From: "Even, Roni" To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Gonzalo, It is not only a bandwidth problem. It is also a size problem (big = conferences). So why not keep the two different MIME types as in the = current draft Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:12 PM > To: Even, Roni > Cc: Oscar Novo; XCON > Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package >=20 > Hi Roni, >=20 > the problem with reusing the old MIME type for full XCON notifications > is that a server may send notifications with a set of XML elements the > legacy client will not understand (i.e., the new elements defined by = the > XCON data model). The client will ignore them and everything will work > fine. However, bandwidth will be wasted because all those new elements > will be transmitted to simply be ignored at their destination. Do you > see any other problem in addition to this bandwidth problem? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Gonzalo >=20 > Even, Roni wrote: > > Gonzalo, > > The concern was that the server needs to allow SIPPING client = supporting > the current event package and XCON client supporting the new data > structure to receive notifications. > > > > The full notification will be different for the two cases since = there > are different data models. So my view is that you need two different = types > enabling to request full notification for SIPPING and for XCON users > > > > > > Roni > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:00 PM > >> To: Oscar Novo > >> Cc: XCON > >> Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event = package > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why = a > new > >> MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state > >> attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state > >> attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the = old > >> MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new = one > >> for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. > >> > >> Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > >> > >> Oscar Novo wrote: > >>> Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and = a > >>> different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. > >>> > >>> Oscar > >>> > >>>> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you = mean > >> that > >>>> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Gonzalo > >>>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> XCON mailing list > >> XCON@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 14:06:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIGb-0002gV-5w; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:06:37 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIGa-0002gQ-AS for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:06:36 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIGa-0002gI-0V for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:06:36 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIGX-0006wz-L7 for xcon@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:06:35 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 5B48921192; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:06:32 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab5e9bb0000007e1-43-47a0cab8140f Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3D76520069; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:06:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:06:31 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.11] ([131.160.126.11]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:06:31 +0100 Message-ID: <47A0CAB6.6080003@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:06:30 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Even, Roni" Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1721@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> In-Reply-To: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C054C1721@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 19:06:31.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[398FE6A0:01C86373] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi Roni, I am not arguing either way. I just want to understand the issues involved before we make a decision. Can you elaborate on the size problem you hint at below? What is the actual problem you have in mind? Thanks, Gonzalo Even, Roni wrote: > Gonzalo, > It is not only a bandwidth problem. It is also a size problem (big conferences). So why not keep the two different MIME types as in the current draft > Roni > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:12 PM >> To: Even, Roni >> Cc: Oscar Novo; XCON >> Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package >> >> Hi Roni, >> >> the problem with reusing the old MIME type for full XCON notifications >> is that a server may send notifications with a set of XML elements the >> legacy client will not understand (i.e., the new elements defined by the >> XCON data model). The client will ignore them and everything will work >> fine. However, bandwidth will be wasted because all those new elements >> will be transmitted to simply be ignored at their destination. Do you >> see any other problem in addition to this bandwidth problem? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> Even, Roni wrote: >>> Gonzalo, >>> The concern was that the server needs to allow SIPPING client supporting >> the current event package and XCON client supporting the new data >> structure to receive notifications. >>> The full notification will be different for the two cases since there >> are different data models. So my view is that you need two different types >> enabling to request full notification for SIPPING and for XCON users >>> >>> Roni >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:00 PM >>>> To: Oscar Novo >>>> Cc: XCON >>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a >> new >>>> MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state >>>> attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state >>>> attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old >>>> MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new one >>>> for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. >>>> >>>> Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> >>>> Oscar Novo wrote: >>>>> Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a >>>>> different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. >>>>> >>>>> Oscar >>>>> >>>>>> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean >>>> that >>>>>> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gonzalo >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> XCON mailing list >>>> XCON@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 03:12:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUWn-0001cz-HP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:09 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUWn-0001a1-6Y for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:09 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUWm-0001X6-RC for xcon@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:08 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUWl-0005ZC-56 for xcon@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:08 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 50EF22039A for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:12:06 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab5e9bb0000007e1-8c-47a182d69f54 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 405D321796 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:12:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:12:05 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:12:05 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A117A25D1; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:12:05 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4952F4DC59; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:12:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EBB4DB34; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:12:03 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package From: Oscar Novo To: Gonzalo Camarillo In-Reply-To: <47A0AD06.6090905@ericsson.com> References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> <1201697000.6497.36.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A0AD06.6090905@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:12:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1201767161.6726.17.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 08:12:05.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[F77FA160:01C863E0] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org True, I didn't remember the new state elements defined in the event packages... So, if we define them, we need a new MIME type. Oscar On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 18:59 +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a new > MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state > attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state > attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old > MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new one > for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. > > Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > Oscar Novo wrote: > > Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a > > different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. > > > > Oscar > > > >> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean that > >> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > > > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon From xcon-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 06:22:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXV5-0004Ge-LH; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:35 -0500 Received: from xcon by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXV3-0004GO-RU for xcon-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:33 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXV3-0004GG-HU for xcon@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:33 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXV1-0000PS-Vt for xcon@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:33 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4F89B217B0 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:22:31 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-acdecbb0000007e1-78-47a1af773c7b Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4191B215A8 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:22:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:22:30 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.51] ([131.160.126.51]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47A1AF76.1090408@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:22:30 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oscar Novo Subject: Re: [XCON] Partial notifications for the XCON event package References: <47974D37.3070508@ericsson.com> <47A04B9F.2000005@ericsson.com> <1201692445.6497.11.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A05FEA.2010607@ericsson.com> <1201697000.6497.36.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> <47A0AD06.6090905@ericsson.com> <1201767161.6726.17.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> In-Reply-To: <1201767161.6726.17.camel@oscar630.nomadiclab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 11:22:30.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[915DE4D0:01C863FB] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: XCON X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xcon-bounces@ietf.org Hi, well, regarding new state elements, I'd rather use xml patch operations, which is a far more general mechanism. Cheers, Gonzalo Oscar Novo wrote: > True, I didn't remember the new state elements defined in the event > packages... So, if we define them, we need a new MIME type. > > Oscar > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 18:59 +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the current event package draft has a whole section explaining why a new >> MIME type is needed. The reason it gives is the presence of state >> attributes in new elements. However, if we do not define new state >> attributes by use xml patch operations instead, we could reuse the old >> MIME type, as you suggest. Of course, we would need to define a new one >> for partial notifications based on xml patch operations. >> >> Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> Oscar Novo wrote: >>> Yes, I believe we should use the same MIME type as in RFC4575 and a >>> different MIME type for the 'xml patch operation' option. >>> >>> Oscar >>> >>>> what do you exactly mean by "100% backward compatible"? Do you mean that >>>> we should be using the same MIME type as in RFC 4575? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> > _______________________________________________ XCON mailing list XCON@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon