Subject: [Simple] [MSRP chat] Issue 12: From header in CPIM

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:20:26 +0300

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
 >> An MSRP switch that receives a SEND request from a participant SHOULD
 >>    first verify that the From header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper
 >>    is correctly populated with a valid URI as indicated earlier.  If the
 >>    URI included in the From header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper is
 >>    not valid (e.g, because it does not "belong" to the user), then the
 >>    MSRP switch MUST generate a 403 response and MUST NOT forward the
 >>    SEND request to any of the participants.  Otherwise, the MSRP switch
 >>    SHOULD generate a 200 response according to the MSRP rules for
 >>    response generation.
 >
 > Hmm, I wonder if, you take the model that NICKNAME is like CNAME/SSRC,
 > then the only thing that you would be allowed send in the MSRP is the
 > nickname, and then in that case this authentication is easy - you only
 > need to verify that the sender had reserved that nickname. Would allow a
 > much lighter relationship between the focus and the msrp switch.

True, but then we would be forcing that every user needs a nickname to
join the conference. So far, we have been thinking that nicknames
could be disabled by policy. This is something I have observed
particularly in corporate chat rooms.

Additionally, we currently have a two-stage joining model, where first
there is an INVITE and the a NICKNAME method to set up the
nickname. Therefore, it is perfectly valid that a user does not setup
his nickname at all.

So, I think we need to leave the text as is.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

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