Subject: [Simple] Multi-party chat WGLC?

From: "Geir Arne Sandbakken" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:39:19 +0200

Experts,
 
The 05 version resolves the issues raised in the first WGLC of the draft.  Does the WG think it is ready for another WGLC?
 
Thanks,
Geir Arne

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:38:51 -0500

I am interested to see this moving forward. I will review it and get  
back to the list with my comments.

--
Adrian

On Oct 9, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Geir Arne Sandbakken wrote:

> Experts,
>
> The 05 version resolves the issues raised in the first WGLC of the  
> draft.  Does the WG think it is ready for another WGLC?
>
> Thanks,
> Geir Arne
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:05:28 -0500

<as individual>

I'm still in the process of reviewing this version, but I want to  
point out one particular change that went in as a result of the  
previous WGLC feedback:

Both versions rely on "message/cpim" metatdata for certain MSRP  
message routing and authorization decisions. The previous version  
overlooked the possibility of a large message being sent as a series  
of chunks. Chunking occurs after MIME encoding. When a message/cpim  
document gets chunked, the metadata will only be present in the first  
chunk. Revision 4 assumed that each MSRP send request would include  
the metatdata.

Revision 5 deals with this by requiring the MSRP switch to be message  
stateful. It has to remember the message/cpim metadata until it  
processes all chunks of a given message. This metadata "state" is  
indexed by the MSRP Message-ID header field., which is the same for  
all chunks of a given message.

IMO, this is the best approach of any that I have heard of so far. It  
is unfortunate that we need to keep message state, but I don't see an  
alternative short of forbidding chunking of messages to an MSRP switch.

What do other people think about this?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Geir Arne Sandbakken" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:03:41 +0200

Ben,

It will be hard to avoid being stateful. The headers of the
"message/cpim" wrapper might be split in two chunks.  The switch must be
stateful until a full header set is received. The chunk example in -05
shows a split in the headers of the "message/cpim" wrapper.

Thanks,
Geir Arne

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ben Campbell
Sent: 13. oktober 2009 00:05
To: Geir Arne Sandbakken
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] Message Stateful MSRP Switches (was Re: Multi-party
chatWGLC?)

<as individual>

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:15:04 -0500

> shows a split in the headers of the "message/cpim" wrapper.

Just to be clear--I agree that it will be hard not to be stateful. I  
didn't mean to object to the change--I'm just trying to make sure  
everyone notices and understands it.