Subject: RE: Draft Submission (floor control)

From: "Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:45:36 -0500

Henning,

thanks for your comment.

Some words to this. The document tried to address the problem more
from a functionality point of view, i.e., what is (or might be) needed
in
certain classes of conferences. If a particular scenario requires floor
control
or membership enforcement than it is this service that you have to
somehow
implement. 

When it comes to certain environments for realizing these services, such
as in 
centralized or multicast conferences, certain protocols (which might
merely be 
simple extensions of existing ones) have to be picked for this. 

I totally agree that especially centralized conferences are very easy
to provide with a solution, and are therefore one of the first
candidates
for a protocol solution. This interest was also expressed by Jonathan
in London.

The draft, however, did not address this since it was targetted as a 
problem statement. However, I could add a section that already evaluates
candidates that are 'most likely'.

Regards,

Dirk

> Thanks for the draft.
> 
> It would be nice if the document was much clearer in its distinction
> between centralized conferences [11], and multicast conferences. Some
> things, like floor control, are really easy to enforce in centralized
> conferences (using existing protocols with minor extensions), but
> require reliable multicast protocols, and N-to-N reliability and
> distributed state management to boot. I suspect if we want to make
> progress after ten years on this topic, that separating the two will
> help.
> 
> -- 
> Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
>

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:50:29 -0500

"Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston)" wrote:

> candidates that are 'most likely'.

I think the section on existing solutions would be more useful if it
addressed what functionality is available in the multicast and
centralized case.