From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Aug 1 15:38:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E121F0C5A; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZyBnKHSUF7sk; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DD91F0C49; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.57 Message-ID: <20110801223815.16576.13024.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:38:15 -0700 Cc: xcon@ietf.org Subject: [XCON] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-10.txt X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:38:15 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Centralized Conferencing Working Grou= p of the IETF. Title : Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) Ca= ll Flow Examples Author(s) : Mary Barnes Lorenzo Miniero Roberta Presta Simon Pietro Romano Filename : draft-ietf-xcon-examples-10.txt Pages : 81 Date : 2011-08-01 This document provides detailed call flows for the scenarios documented in the Centralized Conferencing (XCON) Framework and the XCON Scenarios. The call flows document the use of the interface between a conference control client and a conference control server using the Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP). The objective is to provide a base reference for both protocol researchers and developers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-examples-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-examples-10.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Aug 2 17:16:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A9611E810F; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arl7pLPrVpRH; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742F311E80F0; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:16:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.57 Message-ID: <20110803001632.16493.56600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:16:32 -0700 Cc: xcon@ietf.org Subject: [XCON] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-15.txt X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:16:33 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Centralized Conferencing Working Grou= p of the IETF. Title : Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol Author(s) : Mary Barnes Chris Boulton Simon Pietro Romano Henning Schulzrinne Filename : draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-15.txt Pages : 114 Date : 2011-08-02 The Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) allows an XCON conferencing system client to create, retrieve, change, and delete objects that describe a centralized conference. CCMP is a means to control basic and advanced conference features such as conference state and capabilities, participants, relative roles, and details. CCMP is a state-less, XML-based, client server protocol that carries, in its request and response messages, conference information in the form of XML documents and fragments conforming to the centralized conferencing data model schema. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-15.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-15.txt From ben@estacado.net Tue Aug 9 18:02:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADE021F84E4 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IztpKwGVL4ty for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A803E21F84E6 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-187-75-59.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.75.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7A12Ug0018611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:02:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: <642D74C0-A298-47E4-A0C2-3819D4E093BD@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:02:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <89DAF676-85CF-4043-863F-61B018104DBB@estacado.net> References: <642D74C0-A298-47E4-A0C2-3819D4E093BD@nostrum.com> To: Robert Sparks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: pete resnick , xcon@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [XCON] Should we keep or adjust some of the redundant text in common-data-model? X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Centralized Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:02:19 -0000 On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > All - >=20 > During IESG evaluation, Pete Resnick observed that common-data-model, = ccmp, and the examples document > each had places where the documents repeated each other, and repeated = clauses from the documents they > depend on (such as RFC4575) in ways that make the document harder to = read and introduce the possibility > of conflict between those documents, especially as they are maintained = in the future. It's been a while, but I think I had a similar concern doing the gen-art = review, but decided not to comment on it as I thought it was more a = question of style than substance. But I agree it is probably more = readable and less maintenance error prone without the redundant = sections. =20 That being said, common-data-model defines an xml-schema. The question = to me would be whether that schema is complete with the sections = removed, keeping in mind that schemas including elements from other RFC = can be precarious. But on a quick re-scan, and assuming the elements = would stay in the Relax-NG definition, the sections in question seem = descriptive only.=20 Perhaps a single section that says "elements X,Y, and Z are as defined = in [RFC4975]? I know the draft effectively does that in section 4, but = following a bunch of asterisks in ascii art is a bit hard on the eyes. >=20 > Pete has a concrete suggestion for removing the redundancy in this = document in his DISCUSS at > = . I would like to confirm that > people have considered the potential for conflict between the = documents in the future and want to maintain > the text as it is currently constructed anyhow, or if the changes Pete = proposes are acceptable to the group. > Either answer is ok - the point of Pete's DISCUSS is to confirm that = the working group has considered this > possibility rather than to insist on a particular change. >=20 > Pete's proposal is to completely remove sections like 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 = which currently say >> 4.2.2. >>=20 >> The element is described in section 5.3 of = [RFC4575]. >>=20 >> 4.2.3. >>=20 >> The element is described in section 5.3 of [RFC4575]. > to remove similar sections that copy sentences forward from 4575, like >> 4.2.11. >>=20 >> The describes auxiliary services available for the >> conference. The element is described in section = 5.3.2 >> of [RFC4575]. > (note that that first sentence is also the first sentence of 5.3.2 in = 4575), >=20 > to avoid things that could be interpreted as clarifications or even = updates to 4575, such as the > first sentence of 4.2.10: >> 4.2.10. >>=20 >> The element contains the identifiers to be used in = order >> to access the conference by different signaling means.=20 >=20 > and to avoid duplication and some of the coupling with other documents > throughout the introduction, by removing paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, and = the figure. >=20 > Please see the link to the discuss text for the full set of proposed = changes. >=20 > What does the group think? >=20 > My 2cents - I agree with the principle behind Pete's suggestion, and I = think my first read of the document would have > been smoother without sections like 4.2.2. I think the opportunity for = error introduced by drift as the > documents are maintained is very low, but the editorial effort to = avoid that risk is also very low. > I am less convinced that the introductory material is redundant and = think the coupling with, for instance, > 5239 is maintainable going forward. >=20 > RjS >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > XCON mailing list > XCON@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon