Subject: [Simple] MSRP: IANA considerations

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:14:41 +0200

About MSRP and the IANA considerations: I noticed that MSRP does not 
register any method, header, response code, etc. Then, MSRP relays says 
in section 9 that there are no new requirements to IANA:

Isn't this a bit mess without such registry? I would expect that MSRP 
follows a similar policy than SIP. I would expect MSRP to open a new 
MSRP registry with sub-registries for methods, headers, responses, etc.

Let's take MSRP-Relays. However, at least I have detected quite a few 
new "things" to be registered with IANA. Essentially, everything 
described under Section 4, "Overview of New Protocol Elements"

- New method: AUTH

- New headers: Use-Path, Authorization, WWW-Authenticate, 
Authentication-Info, Expires, Min-Expires, Max-Expires

- New response code: 423 Out-of-bounds

By the way: I am missing 401 Unauthorized from the above list in Section 4.

Don't you think it would be easier to establish a registry with all 
those sub-registries?

Regards,

           Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:10:26 +0200

As a followup of this thread for which I didn't get any comment. I 
noticed that MSRP includes the following text section 12:

    MSRP was designed to be only minimally extensible.  New MSRP Methods,
    Headers, and status codes can be defined in standards track RFCs.
    There is no registry of headers, methods, or status codes, since the
    number of new elements and total extensions is expected to be very
    small.  MSRP does not contain a version number or any negotiation
    mechanism to require or discover new features.  If a
    non-interoperable update or extension occurs in the future, it will
    be treated as a new protocol, and must describe how its use will be
    signaled.

It seems that the justification for not having an IANA registy of MSRP 
parameters is because MSRP is desienged to minimally extensible. It 
occurs to me that this justification seems a bit weak. We have seen so 
many protocols that started with this minimalistic approach and end up 
in being a highly extensible protocol (and I wouldn't mention examples 
here). MSRP already includes some rudimentary capabilities support (501 
Method not allowed, 415 MIME type not supported).

I also see that the IANA registration serves a two-fold purpose: on one 
side it avoids the clash of new MSRP parameters when they are defined; 
on the other side serves as a tracker of MSRP methods, headers and 
status codes. I see both very valuable for implementations, and I would 
encourage you to reconsider this decision prior to publish these drafts 
as RFCs.

Having said that, the MSRP relays draft needs a bit of clean-up in this 
area:
- It mentions the 423 "Interval Out-of-Bounds" response, but it is never 
properly defined.
- It mentions Min-Expires and Max-Expires headers, but they are not 
defined elsewhere either.

An IANA considerations section will help to kee track of those MSRP 
parameters, and identify whether they are errors or headers.

Regards,

           Miguel

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:33:29 -0700

Don't know what others think but I don't think a registry is needed for any
of this. If later on there is great need for it, we could add it later (like
we did for SIP). I don't care greatly but don't want to clog IAN que with
stuff not critical.

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:07:07 +0200

I think the registry is mostly needed. It is a matter of time whether 
you want to create the registry now or later. If the problem with doing 
it now is the time IANA requires to do an action, then shouldn't we 
start writing a I-D now that registers all this values? This way the 
IANA registration will not be a head-of-line blocking for MSRP and 
MSRP-relays.

- Miguel

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:32:27 -0600

I don't have a strong opinion on the meat of the matter, but I think we 
have discussed this in the past, and came up with a wg consensus not to 
have a registry. I don't think there are any new arguments here.

It is, of course, possible that I misremember.

On Dec 16, 2004, at 4:07 AM, Miguel Garcia wrote:

> you want to create the registry now or later. If the problem with 
> doing it now is the time IANA requires to do an action, then shouldn't 
> we start writing a I-D now that registers all this values? This way 
> the IANA registration will not be a head-of-line blocking for MSRP and 
> MSRP-relays.
>
> - Miguel
>
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:51:17 -0800

I'm really happy to "do the right thing" here - just not sure what that is
and could easily go either way. I agree that if we need IANA to do something
and IANA can't, then we ought to go fix IANA. I started a thread on the ietf
mailing list to see if we can get a little concrete advice on what to do.