Thursday, June 30, 2016

Facebook page

One more channel to share and engage:

https://www.facebook.com/Panda-Eats-Bamboo-1404693529544647/

Getting Surveillance Camera Snapshot with Spark Chatbot

Bear with me if it is just too much.  I am developing different use cases with Spark that might be useful for myself.  Yesterday I had posted these two use cases:

Device monitoring:
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.hk/2016/06/using-spark-to-monitor-device.html

Config backup:
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.hk/2016/06/using-spark-for-my-routers-and-switches.html

Another use case is I can ask the chatbot to send my home surveillance camera snapshot to me via Spark.  In a lot of time I don't need the live video as it consumes cellular bandwidth.  A snapshot is usually work to get a feeling what my children are doing at home.



Previous use cases:
Network monitoring - http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/2016/06/using-spark-to-monitor-device.html
Config backup - http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/2016/06/using-spark-for-my-routers-and-switches.html
Energywise demo with bot - http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/2016/06/cisco-spark-bot-energywise-demo.html

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Using Spark to monitor device availability

This is another use case I used Spark in my lab, to check the availability of my lab devices.  When there is outage, the chatbot will alert me proactively so that I can check and troubleshoot the issue earlier rather than later.

My DX70 is now on CE 8.2!



Conversion Doc:
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.hk/2016/06/migrate-dx7080-devices-from-android-to.html

CE 8.2 on DX is live now!



Conversion Doc:
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/2016/06/migrate-dx7080-devices-from-android-to.html

Migrate DX70/80 devices from Android to CE software

The guide is now posted:

http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/telepresence/endpoint/ce82/dx80-dx70-convert-between-CE-android-based-software.pdf

Using Spark for my routers and switches config backup

Not the most innovative idea in the world, but it works for me.  In my home and lab there are quite a number of routers and switches.  This is what I've configured on the devices to periodically upload the config to the FTP server

ip ftp source-interface
ip ftp username nms
ip ftp password nms
file prompt quiet
!
kron policy-list backup
 cli copy running-config ftp://10.1.5.98
!
kron occurrence daily-backup at 0:30 recurring
 policy-list backup

There is another script running on my Linux host to post these config files to Spark using the Spark Message API.  Good thing for Spark is it is persistent, and I can store the config files there as long as I want.


I do it for my development source code too, similar concept.


A script will be executed every night using the linux box cron job to get this done.  Or do it manually, by asking my chatbot to do it.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

UDS API - Query User info

You can query the user information with the UDS API, it is a HTTP GET request and if the LDAP search UDS proxy feature is enabled on 11.5, you can use it to query the LDAP users with this API.

This is the HTTP GET request that I've used for the below screen capture:
https://10.1.90.11/cucm-uds/users?name=aeinstein

Read-only AXL in UCM 11.5

One of the improvements in UCM 11.5 is it has a new standard user roles that restrict users to have read-only AXL access.  It provides better security and reduce chance of human errors in accessing the UCM database.

User management > User settings > Role






Sunday, June 19, 2016

Field notice - old phones are not going to support on UCM 11.5

As per my previous post regarding old phone is no longer support on UCM 11.5:

http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.hk/2016/06/old-phones-will-not-be-supported-in-ucm.html

There is an official field notice issued a few days ago, so make sure you plan ahead before upgrading your system if you are still using these old phones:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/11_5_1/fieldNotice/cucm_b_fn-deprecated-phone-models-1151.html


  • Cisco IP Phone 12 SP+ and related models
  • Cisco IP Phone 30 VIP and related models
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7902
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7905
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7910
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7910SW
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7912
  • Cisco Unified Wireless IP Phone 7920
  • Cisco Unified IP Conference Station 7935

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Multistream meetings - Layout

Multistream is a new feature introduced in CE 8.0.  This is the Cisco implementation of H.264 SVC.  This post is targeted to share with you the difference in the layout and user experience for pre-CE and post-CE 8 endpoints.

http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/telepresence/endpoint/software/ce8/release-notes/ce-software-release-notes-ce8.pdf



This is the layout of a multi-party conference call on MX300G2 with CE 8 firmware.  The call is terminated on a mm820 telepresence server blade with multistream enabled.  It has a maximum 4 participants at the top when the remote end is sharing the presentation.  The number of additional participants are showed at the bottom right corner.





Comparing with this SX20 endpoint that is running TC 7.3.4 and you can spot the difference.  Presentation is occupying the majority of the screen, and the main video at the top is showing active speaker as the major portion, with tiny activepresence for non-active speaker at the bottom of the main video.  There is significant improvement of user experience with multistream enabled.

From the call statistics on the web interface, you will notice there are multiple incoming video instead of a single video from Telepresence Server.






Cisco Spark Bot + Energywise Demo

I have developed a very basic bot and one of the use case that was developed is the energy control use case.  I can talk to my bot and ask the bot to switch off / on the energy of my Cisco DX650 phones using the energywise command of the Cisco switch.

This bot is based on the Flint project in Github, for more information please check it out here:
https://github.com/nmarus/flint


Friday, June 17, 2016

Old phones will not be supported in UCM 11.5

This is something that caught my attention.  Unlike the previous release, in UCM 11.5 it is going to remove some of the old phones support.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/rel_notes/11_5_1/cucm_b_release-notes-cucm-imp-1151/cucm_b_release-notes-cucm-imp-1151_chapter_010.html

Deprecated Endpoints
As of Cisco Unified Communications Manager Firmware Release 11.5, the following phones are not supported:


  • Cisco IP Phone 12 SP+ and related models
  • Cisco IP Phone 30 VIP and related models
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7902
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7905
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7910
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7910SW
  • Cisco Unified IP Phone 7912
  • Cisco Unified Wireless IP Phone 7920
  • Cisco Unified IP Conference Station 7935

If you use any of these phone models on an older release of Cisco Unified Communications Manager and you upgrade to Release 11.5, the phone will not work after the upgrade completes.

Phone registration to Spark Call Services

My lab 8861 registers to the Spark Call Services in the cloud.  I am using a Cisco dCloud setup that has recently updated with this Spark Call capability.  The experience will be even better if I have a 8865 / 8845 video phone to recognise the QR code to get the activation code, which I don't have it with me.




Clean and nice user interface!


More info:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/unified-communications/hosted-collaboration-solution-hcs/datasheet-c78-736823.html

Public Law - Judicial Review



PrincipleCase Name / Definition
Senior Courts Act 1981s31
Civil Procedure Rule (CPR)part 54
RemediesPrerogative orders: (CPR 54.2)
quashing order
prohibiting order
mandatory order

Non-prerogative orders:
declarations
injunctions (may include damages, but not damages alone) CPR 54.3(2), SCA s31(4)
using private law procedure for public law rights - abuse of process

Procedure Exclusivity
O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] - Prison Riot
Datafin 2 part testsource of power test - if setup under statute / delegated legislation / or derives power from a reviewable prergative power = public body

nature of power test - if the body making the decision is exercising public law functions = may still be a public body
Locus StandiiS31(3) Senior Courts Act - court must not grant leave for application for JR unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates
whose rights or interests are directly affected by public decision or actionSchmidt v SS Home Affairs [1969] - Study Scientology
May recognise the sufficient interest of an individual to challenge a decision that affects society as a wholeR v SS Foreign Affairs ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] - former editor ot Times, regarding EU law power
courts will recognise the interests of organisations when decisions or actions affect members individuallyR v Liverpool Corporation ex p. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association [1972]
May recognise interest to decision or action that allegedly harms the public interestIRC v National Federation of Small Business [1982] - evade tax
Factors the court will take into account when deciding whether a pressure group has sufficient standing to bring a claim for JR:

1. the importance of the matter
2. whether anybody is better placed to bring the claim
3. the need to uphold the rule of law
4. the role of the pressure group
5. the relevant statutory duty involved
R v Secretary of States for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Limited [1995]
Time LimitsCPR Part 54.5 - 3 months
SCA 1981 s31(6) - Without undue delay
Full Ouster - 'should not be called into question in any court of law'Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
Partial Ouster - to exclude jurisdiction of the court once a time limit has expiredR v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Ostler [1976]
In the absence of any negligence or breach of contract - no right to damages

may not seek damages alone
R v Knowsley MBC, ex p Maguire [1992]
Grounds for JRCCSU v Minister for Civil Service [1984]

GCHQ - Lord Diplock

1. illegality
2. irrationality
3. procedural improprietary

future - proportionality
Illegality (PREF WA)- Acting without legal authority
- Wrongful delegation
- Fettering of discretion
- Purposes
- Relevant / irrelevant considerations
- Error of law / Error of fact?
Procedural Impropriety (RM LOR)- procedural fairness
- natural justice
- bias?
- procedural ultra vires
Irrationalityso unreasonable - no reasonable recision-making would have come to it (Wednesbury)
Illegality - Acting without Legal AuthorityLaker Airways v Department of Trade [1977] - Airline operator license, also frustrating the purpose of the Act

SS for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] - Grammar school

AG v Fulham - laundry case
Illigeality - The rule against delegation - decision making powers once given by Parliament, cannot then be further delegated, or sub-delegatedVine v National Dock Labour Board [1957]
Exceptions to the rule against delegation

Ministers sub-delegateing decision making powers to civil servants in their departments provides an exception to the generul rule against delegation
- because of individual ministerial responsibility
- government ministers are utimately responsible for Parliament for their departments - there is an expectation that they act through their civil servants in taking even major decisions
Carltona
Exceptions to the rule against delegation

s101 of the Local Government Act 1972
Local authorities may delegate decision-making powers to committees, provided they make a formal resolution so to do
Illigality - Fettering by Dictation

the decision is not based on a general policy, but based on another Minister's objection - fettered his discretion by not opening hist mind to hist application-
Lavender & Sons Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970]
Illegality - Fettering by Self-created rules of policy

Lord Reid - The general rule is that anyone who has to exercise a statutory discretion must not shout his ears to an application
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971]
Illegality - Improper purposesCongreve v Home Office [1976] - TV license $12 -> $18
Illegality - Dual purposes

Provided the permitted/authorised purpose is the primary purpose -> not ultra vires
Westminister Corporation v LNWR [1905] - Toilet Subway
Illegality - Material Influence TestR v ILEA, ex p Westminister City Council [1986] - $651000 ad campaign
Illegality - Taking account of irrelevant considerations or failing to take account of relevant considerationsRoberts v Hopwood [1925] - pay higher wage due to socialist policy
Illegality - Errors of law Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
Illegality - Errors of FactSSHD ex p Khawaja
Irrationality - The Wednesbury Priniciple

The decision-maker came to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it
Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]
Post-Wednesbury - to be irrational, a decision must be so outrageous in its difiance of logic or of accepted moral standards, that no sensible person could have arrived at itGCHQ
Post-Wednesbury - the decision should be beyond the range of reasonable responses open to the decision maker - even higher standardR v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996]
Proportionality - DefinitionR v Goldstein [1983] - You must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut, if a nutcracker would do
Case not involving human rights, EU law - test remains Wednesbury unreasonableness / irrationality. For human rights, EU law - proportionalityR v SS for Defence ex p Associate of British Civilian Internees (Far East Region) [2003]
Procedural Impropriety - including ...Statutory Procedural Requirements
- Procedural Ultra Vires

Common Law Procedural Requirements
- Procedural Fairness
- The Rule Against Bias
Procedural Impropriety - Procedural Ultra ViresLondon and Clyde Estates Ltd v Aberdeen DC

Lord Hailsham LC said: ‘When Parliament lays down a statutory requirement for the exercise of legal authority it expects its authority to be obeyed down to the minutest detail. But what the courts have to decide in a particular case is the legal consequence of non-compliance on the rights of the subject viewed in the light of a concrete state of facts and a continuing chain of events.

Aylesbury Mushroom
The procedure allowed for consultations with appropriate organisations but this procedure was not followed.
Procedural Impropriety - Procedural Fairness - natural justiceRidge v Baldwin [1963] - Chief Constable Dismissed without chance to defence
Procedural Fairness- Advance notice of the case to be met
- A reasonable amount of time to prepare a response
- An opportunity to make representations
- An opportunity to cross-examine persons who may have made adverse statements to the decision maker
- legal representation
- reasons for decision
Procedural Fairness - reasonable time to prepare responsesR v Thames Magistrates ex p Polemis [1974]
Procedural Fairness - An opportunity to make representationsMcInnes v Onslow Fane [1978]
Procedural Fairness - Legal Representations

Not an absolute right
R v Home Secretary ex p Tarrant [1985]
Procedural Fairness - An opportunity to cross-examineR v Hull Prison Board of Vistors, ex p St Germain
Procedural Fairness - Reasons for the decision

Reasons must be given when fairness requires it
R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, ex p Doody [1994]
Direct Interest - Financial

decision automatically set aside
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]
The Appearance of BiasPorter v Magill

Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods [2001]

a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased
Lord Hailsham LC said: ‘When Parliament lays down a statutory requirement for the exercise of legal authority it expects its authority to be obeyed down to the minutest detail. But what the courts have to decide in a particular case is the legal consequence of non-compliance on the rights of the subject viewed in the light of a concrete state of facts and a continuing chain of events.London and Clyde Estates Ltd v Aberdeen DC
Proportionality caseHook

Public Law - Royal Prerogative


PrincipleCase Name / Definition
Royal PrerogativeRP is the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown. Every act which the govenment can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of this Prerogative

AV Dicey
... formulated the modern doctrine of the Separation of PowersMontesquieu
... popularised the term elective dictatorshipLord Hailsham
Definition of Convention1. Rules of constitutional behaviour
2. Considered binding by thouse who operate the constitution
3. Not enforced by Courts or Parliament

Marshall & Moodie
Sir Ivor Jenning's 3 stage test for existance of conventions1. What are the precedents?

2. Did the actors in the precedents believe that they were bound by a rule?

3. Whether there is a good reason for the rule?
Freedom of SpeechArticle 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689
Executive might exercise a power which appears to exist under the RP and is controlled by a statute, the executive must use the statutory power. The RP power is not available to the executive any more if a statute covers the same area.

RP goes into abeyance
AG v De Keyser's Royal Hotel
Where a statutory power and a prerogative power cover the same area, the executive may use the prerogative power alongside the statutory power, if in the opinion of the court, the RP power convers an additional benefitR v Home Secretary exp Northumbria Police Authority
Where a statute and a prerogative power exist in the same area, the executive may not use prerogative powers that confer and additional benefit if the statute clearly forbids what the executive wants to doR v Home Secretary exp Fire Brigade Union
It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the queen's courts to broaden the prerogativeBBC v Johns
Traditional position - no right to review the exercise of powerBlackburn v AG
HL changed the law bout the power of the court to oversee the RP - designate all RP as either justiciable or non-justiciable. Court could interfere with the way the executive used "justiciable" prerogatives if the use of the prerogative was "Wednesbury unreasonable"GCHQ - Lord Roskill
Non-justiciable prerogative could become justiciable, the court has the power to change itR v Home Secretary exp Bentley case
The Wednesbury testSo unreasonable that no reasonable person could come to it
Management of civil service put on a statutory footingConstitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRGA 2010)
Dicey's Rule of Law1. the predominance of regular law over arbitrary power
2. no man is above the law
3. the existence of civil rights protected by the common law
Separation of powers - 3 branchesExecutive, Legislature, Judiciary
The Crown can only exercise a royal prerogative that the common law has recognisedCase of Proclamations (1611), Entick v Carrington (1765)
Old prerogative can be adapted to new circumstances - Crown's ancient power to preserve the peace used to arm the policeR v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Northumbria Police Ahtuority [1989]

Public Law - Parliamentary Sovereignty



PrincipleCase Name / Definition
Enrolled Bill RulesIf it should appear a bill has been passed through both houses of Parliament and received the Royal Assent, no court of justice can inquire into the mode in which it was introduced into Parliament, not what was done previous to its introduction or what passed in Parliament during its stage through both houses.

Lord Campbell, Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co. v Wauchope [1842]
Parliamentary SovereigntyThe principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less this, namely, that Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to set aside the legistration of Parliament.

AV Dicey

a. Parliament is the supreme law making body and make laws on ANY matter
b. Parliament cannot bind its successors
c. No body (including courts) can question the validity of an Act of Parliament
affirm Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v WauchopePickin v British Railways Board [1994]

HL said it had no constitutional authority to investigate the allegations that the act was improperly passed and so enforced the Act
QuorumHC = 40, HL = 30
Procedure of making a Bill into Act1st reading > 2nd reading > committee stage > report stage > 3rd readig > HL > Royal Assent
An earlier EU law prevailed over later conflicing national law to the extent of the conflictCosta v ENEL
Not necessary for the national court to request or await the prior setting aside of the provision by legislative or other meansSimmenthal
Conflict between EU and a MS's constitution. Whether the nature of the EU law, prevails over any conflicting provisions of a Bill of Rights in a MS's constitutionInternationale Handelsgesellschaft
Forbids any discrimination against EU citizens on grounds of nationalityTFEU Art 18
Direct EffectVan Gend en Loos critera

1. Clear and Precise
2. unconditional
3. not subject to further implementation by the MS or the EU
Implied RepealVauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932]
presumption of non-retrospectivityBurmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] - receives compensation for destroyed plantation

War Damages Act 1965 - no compensation

retroactively exempts the Crown from liability in respect of damage to, or destruction of, property caused by acts lawfully done by the Crown during, or in contemplation of the outbreak of, a war in which it is engaged
Effects of Factortame1. Doctrine of implied repeal will not stop directly effective EU law prevailing
2. Direct applicable EU law will prevail over conflicting national law by reason of s2(4) ECA 1972
ECtHR - Interstate applicationECHR article 33
ECtHR - Individual petitionsECHR article 34
ECtHR - Cannot be made until all domestic remedies have been exhausted and within 6 months of any final domestic decisionECHR article 35
HRA 1998 - mechanisms for courts to deal with legislation that conflicts with convention rightss3 (interpretation), s4 (declaration of incompatibility), s10 fast track procedure - a government minister can amend a conflcting statute by laying a statutory instrument before Parliament
HRA s3R v A (No. 2) [2002]
Courts may adopt an interpretation which may appear linguistically strained - Lord Steyn
"modifying, altering, or supplementing the words" (Lord Hope)
HRA s3Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]
cannot have intended that in the discharge of this extended interpretative function the courts should adopt a meaning inconsistent with a fundamental feature of legislation
HRA s4R v A - Declaration of incompatibility is a last resort - Lord Steyn

Ghaidan - Lord Steyn - Interpretation under s3(1) is the prime remedial remedy and resort to s4 must always be an exceptional case

R (Anderson) v SSHD [2002] courts have been warned to refrain from 'judicial vandalism' in using s3
HRA s10The government minister may respond by making a remedial order under s10 - conflict removed - no violation
HRA s8Remedies
Removed the HL's legislative veto, can now delay legislation foy 1 year apart from Money Bills and Bills to extend the life of ParliamentParliament Acts of 1911 and 1949
The Enrolled Bill Rule only applies...to Acts of Parliament NOT resolutions