Subject: [Simple] MSRP URLs

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:41:09 +0200

A question about MSRP URLs.

I noticed that the MSRP draft defines URLs to be of the following format:

msrp://alice.example.com:3092/32dk;tcp

whereas the MSRP-relays draft don't uses the "//". For instance:

msrp:a.example.com:1234/agic456;tcp

and

msrps:[email-masked]

So do MSRP URLs contain "//" or not? If yes, how to accommodate 
usernames in the URL?

I guess one or the other draft have to change something...

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: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:34:38 +0100

Hi Miguel,

If you look in RFC 2396, you will see that also with // it is allowed to 
have an optional username part of the authority if you accept using a 
hierarchical URI. However as I don't know MSRP sufficiently I don't know 
if that is suitable.

 From Section 3 of 2396:
       absoluteURI   = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )

       hier_part     = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ]

       net_path      = "//" authority [ abs_path ]

       abs_path      = "/"  path_segments
	
       authority     = server | reg_name

       server        = [ [ userinfo "@" ] hostport ]

       opaque_part   = uric_no_slash *uric

       uric_no_slash = unreserved | escaped | ";" | "?" | ":" | "@" |
                       "&" | "=" | "+" | "$" | ","

But it seems that some work on clarifying the URI definition is 
necessary if the drafts can't answer your question.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:48:38 -0600

The MSRP URL uses the "//" notation, and userinfo is allowed. It sounds 
like the relay draft has a bug here.

BTW, the userinfo construction is only mildly useful for MSRP. The only 
usage I can think of is a syntax to tell a relay aware client to 
authenticate to a particular relay using a particular user name. It 
explicitly does _not_ have an semantics for disambiguating MSRP 
sessions.

On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:34 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> Hi Miguel,
>
> If you look in RFC 2396, you will see that also with // it is allowed 
> to have an optional username part of the authority if you accept using 
> a hierarchical URI. However as I don't know MSRP sufficiently I don't 
> know if that is suitable.
>
>
> From Section 3 of 2396:

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:38:25 -0800

Hi Miguel,

Thanks for pointing that out.  The relay draft is supposed to be 
dependent on the base draft, so we'll fix this in the next rev.

thx,
-r

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:40:15 -0800

On Dec 13, 2004, at 7:48, Ben Campbell wrote:

> BTW, the userinfo construction is only mildly useful for MSRP. The 
> only usage I can think of is a syntax to tell a relay aware client to 
> authenticate to a particular relay using a particular user name.

... and we are in fact using this the relay draft (at least in an 
example)

>  It explicitly does _not_ have an semantics for disambiguating MSRP 
> sessions.

agreed.
thx,
-r

>> to have an optional username part of the authority if you accept 
>> using a hierarchical URI. However as I don't know MSRP sufficiently I 
>> don't know if that is suitable.
>>
>>
>> From Section 3 of 2396:

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:58:40 +0200

Hi Magnus:

Although I agree with you, it must be noted that RFC 2396 is superceed 
by 2396bis (approved by the IESG, not yet RFCed). This does not change 
your comments though.

- Miguel

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:59:07 +0200

ok, thanks.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:26:25 -0700

Ooops - need to fix.

Any particular reason to have the // ?

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:47:55 -0800

If the URI scheme is treating the string "alice.example.com:3092"
as an authority component, it is required.  Please see
draft-fielding-rfc2396bis,  section 3.2.

			regards,
				Ted