Subject: [Simple] MSRP Open Issues

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:04:53 -0600

Here is the list of significant issues and to-do's from the IETF58 
meeting. At least, it is the list that I am aware of. Please send me 
anything I may have missed. (Numbers are for naming purposes, and do not 
indicate priority--with the exception of 1, of course. 3 Also seems high 
priority due to the number of items that depend on it)

I plan to have a new rev of the base spec out before the end of 
December. That rev will include the removal of relays, and the other 
issues that we have closure on. Items that require more discussion will 
depend on the status of the discussion.

-------------------------------------------------
1. Remove relays from the base spec. (Saving relay text for relay 
specific work, of course...) Does this mean that we have to rename the 
protocol?

2. Remove text suggesting re-sending failed messages on the same 
connection. Instead, we should close the connection and re-connect. (See 
item 3...)

3. Close on handling of broken TCP connection. We discussed in the 
meeting that we should be able to reconnect without having to re-signal. 
(I remember now that we had discussed this before, and had a good reason 
at that time _not_ to do this--I will attempt to further remember the 
details so we can decide what currently makes sense.)

3.5 Determine if we need explicity un-visit (interacts with 3.)

4. Do we need a cross-connection duplicate suggestion mechanism? I think 
we said yes, if the new connection is part of the same session as the 
old. (Needs further list discussion as it interacts with 3...)

5. Generalize MIME handling to include mime version and allow arbitrary 
MIME headers.

6. Add text specifying use of sdp send-only attributes to identify 
sessions intended for one-way delivery of large content.

7. Close on keep-alive handling--needs more list discussion. In 
particular, do keep-alives need to be bi-directional?

8. Add more verbiage in security considerations, particularly 
considering TLS certificate usage, self-signed certificates, and 
interactions between TLS and digest authentication. (Cullen volunteered 
to send text on TLS cert usage.) (This also interacts with 3.)

9. A number of nits and editorial fixes.

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:13:31 +0200

> 5. Generalize MIME handling to include mime version and allow arbitrary 

Will this include the possibility of sending all the Content-* headers 
in MSRP. So far the draft only includes Content-Type, but I believe 
other Content-* headers will be useful (e.g., Content-Transfer-Encoding 
or Content-Disposition).

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel-Angel Garcia                     Oy LM Ericsson AB
                                         Jorvas, Finland
mailto:[email-masked]     Phone:  +358 9 299 3553
mailto:[email-masked]        Mobile: +358 40 514 0002

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:13:31 +0200

/Miguel

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:51:10 -0600

Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
>>
>> 5. Generalize MIME handling to include mime version and allow 
>> arbitrary MIME headers.
>>
> 

That is the general idea.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:51:10 -0600

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:14:48 -0800

> other Content-* headers will be useful (e.g., Content-Transfer-Encoding

I think Content-Transfer-Encoding and Content-Disposition are a good idea
but, since this is a 8bit safe system, I think we should say things SHOULD
be sent with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of binary and all the examples
should show this. This caused many interoperability headaches in page mode.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:14:48 -0800

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:40:06 +0200

> should show this. This caused many interoperability headaches in page mode.

Agree. Further more, I wouldn't mind if the spec says that the default 
transfer encoding is binary in the absence of the Content-Transfer-Encoding.

/Miguel

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:40:06 +0200

/Miguel

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:55:28 -0600

Agreed on both points.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:55:28 -0600

Agreed on both points.