Subject: [Simple] Comments on draft-aoki-simple-interdomain-bcp-01.txt

From: "MARJOU Xavier RD-MAPS-LAN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:28:52 +0200

Hi,

In section 6.2, there's a SDP body in the 200 of OPTIONS. Is it a
mistake or is it done or purpose?

In section 6.3.2, interim "IM sessions" solutions merit more details,
especially about the way there are negotiated with SDP.

Xavier

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

---

From: Edwin Aoki <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:15:15 -0700

Xavier,

Thank you for your comments.

> mistake or is it done or purpose?
The SDP body is there on purpose, but it doesn't have any specific 
relevance to the example.  Presumably, the SDP exists to communicate 
information about the media types that the server supports independent 
of whether it supports the page-mode IM (specified by having MESSAGE in 
the Allow) field.
> especially about the way there are negotiated with SDP.
Earlier versions of the related 
draft-levin-simple-interdomain-reqs-03.txt (now expired) had additional 
detail on how to specify an interim session mode IM dialog, but the 
general consensus in this WG was that we should not be encouraging the 
use of sessions-based IM dialogs outside of MSRP.  As it stands, this 
section exists to convey that there are IM systems that have implemented 
session based IM before MSRP was standardized, and that they signal and 
negotiate this capability through SDP.

Cheers,
-Edwin