Subject: [Simple] MSRP when used with SIP/SDP inconsistent with RFC2327 ABNF

From: "Peter Ridler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:05:15 -0400

Hi all,

In the draft-ietf-simple-messages-sessions-07.txt Section 7.1 uses
"accept-types" in the attribute-fields (the a= line) where RFC2327 defines
attribute as:

attribute-fields =    *("a=" attribute CRLF)

attribute = (att-field ":" att-value) / att-field

att-field =           1*(alpha-numeric)

att-value =           byte-string

Note that "att-field" only allows for alpha-numeric field names which would
make "accept-types" illegal.  Maybe the name should be changed to
"AcceptTypes" or something to conform.

Also, Why is the path attribute used and not the media-field (m= line) used
as described in the RFC2327 standard?  I see that the path can have multiple
urls defined but I don't see no more then one ever being used!  SIP controls
the call/session information between the endpoints, MSRP should not have to
resolve the communication paths again.

Peter Ridler

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

---

From: Pekka Pessi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:19:14 +0300

>"accept-types" in the attribute-fields (the a= line) where RFC2327 defines
...
>"AcceptTypes" or something to conform.

RFC 2327 syntax is outdated and it contradicts with the examples
and actual usage (like, it does not allow RTP/AVP as a transport
protocol for media.) I think the problem lies with
message-session-07 reference [2], [2] should refer to
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-XX.

>resolve the communication paths again.

Please see <draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-relays-01.txt>. Traversing
through firewalls by using relays is MSRP's raison d'etre. 

--Pekka

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:38:52 -0500

Sorry for answering so late; I somehow missed this thread until now. 
Comments inline.

> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-XX.

Hmm. I'm not sure how to handle this one; a normative reference to a 
non-rfc will likely delay publication for some time, but we do need to 
reference the right thing. Can the chairs offer a comment?

> through firewalls by using relays is MSRP's raison d'etre.

I assume you mean draft-ietf-simple-msrp-relays-01.txt.

---

From: Pekka Pessi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:21:54 +0300

>Hmm. I'm not sure how to handle this one; a normative reference
>to a non-rfc will likely delay publication for some time, but we
>do need to reference the right thing. Can the chairs offer a
>comment?

I'm afraid RFC 2327 is so hopelessly self-contradictory and
outdated that we *must* use sdp-new. The sdp-new has been in WGLC
last July. I think it is much much less controversial than msrp,
so there are actually good chances that it is out of IESG before
msrp.

>> Please see <draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-relays-01.txt>. 

>I assume you mean draft-ietf-simple-msrp-relays-01.txt.

Thanks.

--Pekka

---

From: "Peter Ridler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:19:36 -0400

Ben,

I have looked at the draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-XX and agree with Pekka. The
sdp-new is the way we should go and we would not have a problem with the
"accept-types" attribute and the MSRP draft can stay as is on this matter.

--Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Pekka Pessi
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:22 PM
To: Ben Campbell
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] MSRP when used with SIP/SDP inconsistent with
RFC2327ABNF

Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> writes:
>> RFC 2327 syntax is outdated and it contradicts with the examples and 
>> actual usage (like, it does not allow RTP/AVP as a transport protocol 
>> for media.) I think the problem lies with

>reference the right thing. Can the chairs offer a comment?

I'm afraid RFC 2327 is so hopelessly self-contradictory and outdated that we
*must* use sdp-new. The sdp-new has been in WGLC last July. I think it is
much much less controversial than msrp, so there are actually good chances
that it is out of IESG before msrp.

Thanks.

--Pekka