Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow Examples
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, mediactrl mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mediactrl chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow Examples' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow Examples' (draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-13.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Media Server Control Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Gonzalo Camarillo. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows/
Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document presents a series of MEDIACTRL-related call flows, presenting client/server state diagrams, message sequence diagrams, and message contents. It is a reference for the whole MEDIACTRL specification for implementers and protocol researchers alike, and all the flows are modeled from an implementation of the framework and its packages. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Several participants in the WG have advocated a call flows document. The advocates included Jon Peterson, who was the AD at the time the Mediactrl WG was chartered. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Lorenzo Miniero reports that interoperability tests were carried out at IETF73 (Minneapolis, Nov 2008) with implementations from HP (OCMP) and Dialogic testing scenarios illustrated by this document. The minutes report other companies that were planning an implementation at the time: "Stephan notes that implementation is be planned on Broadsoft for the spring. Alan notes that Ditech is also planning an implementation." (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/73/minutes/mediactrl.htm) As an examples document, the document does not specify any protocol. All the contained examples were produced by running the scenarios using an existing implementation of the MEDIACTRL specification by the authors themselves. A thorough review was done by Dale Worley, who helped tackle some relevant inconsistencies in the presented scenarios. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The Document Shepherd is Dale Worley. The Responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.