Any response is highly appreciated

Regards,

= Sudhir

--0016361e836ebdbfe204993c7c56-- From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jan 7 04:53:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7253A684F for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 04:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.626 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.622, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id liVfiwF7ev6A for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 04:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F183A684E for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 04:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p07CswEB000943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:55:04 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:55:00 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: Sudhir Kumar , simple Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:55:00 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] Query on SIMPLE/RCS Thread-Index: AcuuO7lOvm7PBnN1SZ2YyRisBBje9gAKlRlg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E5E8F55FRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13 Subject: Re: [Simple] Query on SIMPLE/RCS X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:53:02 -0000 --_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E5E8F55FRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RCS endorses the OMA usage of the SIP/SIMPLE specifications. These use IMS, but use IMS to support the application environment. All the specifications are publically available on the web with googling. L= ook for GSMA websites in results, and the OMA website for the dependent OMA= specifications. Keith ________________________________ From: simple-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Sudhir Kumar Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:23 AM To: simple Subject: [Simple] Query on SIMPLE/RCS All, Apologies if I'm asking something out of the scope of this forum. However I believe there are IMS experts who can advice me on the following = query. How that is different between SIMPLE and RCS standards? Perhaps, RCS is sta= ndard which uses the services of SIMPLE? right?? Any response is highly appreciated Regards, Sudhir --_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E5E8F55FRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

RCS endorses the OMA usage of the SIP/SIMPLE=20 specifications.

These use IMS, but use IMS to support the applicat= ion=20 environment.

All the specifications are publically available on= the web=20 with googling. Look for GSMA websites in results, and the OMA website for t= he=20 dependent OMA specifications.

Keith

From: simple-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sudhir=20 Kumar
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:23 AM
To:=20 simple
Subject: [Simple] Query on SIMPLE/RCS

All,

Apologies=20 if I'm asking something out of the scope of this forum.

However I believe th= ere are=20 IMS experts who can advice me on the following query.

How that is differen= t between=20 SIMPLE and RCS standards? Perhaps, RCS is standard which uses the service= s of=20 SIMPLE? right??

Any response is high= ly=20 appreciated

Regards,

Sudhir

<= /HTML> --_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E5E8F55FRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_-- From fluffy@cisco.com Tue Jan 11 15:47:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354653A67AE for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:47:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.28 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7m9jTMIBtmCh for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAE63A67E3 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADp7LE2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkO3OkGJhfhUwEhGeGJYMg Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2011 23:49:46 +0000 Received: from [192.168.4.2] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0BNnh3p007193; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:49:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Cullen Jennings In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:51:17 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> To: Christer Holmberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com, Simple WG , Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:47:29 -0000 On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I am splitting up the issues in different thread. >=20 > For some of the security related issues I will need to discuss with my = collegue, who is currently on winter vacation. >=20 > Regarding error reporting: > -------------------------- >=20 >>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in the media = packages. It is >>> not TCP state aware, nor does it understand the TCP payload (MSRP or = TLS/MSRP). >>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. >>=20 >> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way I read you = statement, If this was true you would not need this draft as the TLS = would not need to be man in the middled.=20 >> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which change the IP = address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is something more than = just this. If you and/or I are confused=20 >> on this, I suspect much of the WG is just as confused. >=20 > Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute, which causes = a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the 4975 session = matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it modifies the UE session = matching mechanism. Again, we are talking about a *UE* extension :) >=20 > As far as I know there has never been any claim, or confusion = expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG would not be able to = able to change the IP address/port in the same manner as a NAT.=20 >=20 > In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG to do just = that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP address/port) the = MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to terminate TCP/TLS, parse and = modify the To-Path/From-Path of the MSRP messages :) >=20 > Regards, So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and understand SDP (I'd = call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that just terminology) but you are = claiming that all the error it would need to deal with in parsing = changing SDP can be done with ICMP? That does not sound real likely to = me.=20 From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 02:33:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CC428C0FE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:33:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPnyZagebjhk for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6217E3A6A0B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:33:48 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-b2-4d2d8416595f Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 62.11.13987.6148D2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:36:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.116]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:36:06 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Cullen Jennings Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:36:04 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting Thread-Index: Acux6ju242pG4bGESUSW+7aKVjqGDgAWfHkg Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com" , Simple WG , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:33:49 -0000 Hi,=20 >>Regarding error reporting: >> -------------------------- >>=20 >>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in the media=20 >>>> packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it=20 >>>> understand the TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). >>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. >>>=20 >>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way I=20 >>> read you statement, If this was true you would not need this=20 >>> draft as the TLS would not need to be man in the middled.=20 >>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which=20 >>> change the IP address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is=20 >>> something more than just this. If you and/or I are confused=20 >>> on this, I suspect much of the WG is just as confused. >>=20 >> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute,=20 >> which causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the 49= 75 session=20 >> matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it modifies the UE=20 >> session matching mechanism. Again, we are talking about a *UE*=20 >> extension :) >>=20 >> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or=20 >> confusion expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG=20 >> would not be able to able to change the IP address/port in=20 >> the same manner as a NAT.=20 >>=20 >> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG to do just=20 >> that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP address/port)=20 >> the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to terminate TCP/TLS, parse=20 >> and modify the To-Path/From-Path of the MSRP messages :) > > So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and=20 > understand SDP (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that=20 > just terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it=20 > would need to deal with in parsing changing SDP can be done=20 > with ICMP? That does not sound real likely to me.=20 That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order to anchor the med= ia, but it doesn't "parse" the media. Regards, Christer From ben@nostrum.com Wed Jan 12 05:26:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D0F3A6B28 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.795 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJqrnvipxxRs for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2CE3A6B29 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.22] (cpe-76-183-178-106.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.178.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0CDSsf3034408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:28:55 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:28:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> To: Christer Holmberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.183.178.106 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Cc: Cullen Jennings , "Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com" , Simple WG , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:26:43 -0000 On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >=20 > Hi,=20 >=20 >>> Regarding error reporting: >>> -------------------------- >>>=20 >>>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in the media=20= >>>>> packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it=20 >>>>> understand the TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). >>>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. >>>>=20 >>>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way I=20 >>>> read you statement, If this was true you would not need this=20 >>>> draft as the TLS would not need to be man in the middled.=20 >>>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which=20 >>>> change the IP address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is=20 >>>> something more than just this. If you and/or I are confused=20 >>>> on this, I suspect much of the WG is just as confused. >>>=20 >>> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute,=20 >>> which causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the = 4975 session=20 >>> matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it modifies the UE=20 >>> session matching mechanism. Again, we are talking about a *UE*=20 >>> extension :) >>>=20 >>> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or=20 >>> confusion expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG=20 >>> would not be able to able to change the IP address/port in=20 >>> the same manner as a NAT.=20 >>>=20 >>> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG to do just=20= >>> that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP address/port)=20= >>> the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to terminate TCP/TLS, = parse=20 >>> and modify the To-Path/From-Path of the MSRP messages :) >>=20 >> So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and=20 >> understand SDP (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that=20 >> just terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it=20 >> would need to deal with in parsing changing SDP can be done=20 >> with ICMP? That does not sound real likely to me.=20 >=20 > That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order to anchor = the media, but it doesn't "parse" the media. What does the ALG do if the SDP is malformed, or it otherwise fails to = parse it? From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 05:38:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23FD28C100 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:38:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtgYW+FiNjVn for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:38:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7CA3A6B21 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:38:20 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-f0-4d2daf57a2fa Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 68.92.23694.75FAD2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:40:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.81]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:40:39 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Ben Campbell Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:40:38 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting Thread-Index: AcuyXKytVPv+BXplSiKpxEsyySdKuAAAKA5w Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0753B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Cullen Jennings , "Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com" , Simple WG , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:38:21 -0000 Hi,=20 >>>> Regarding error reporting: >>>> -------------------------- >>>>=20 >>>>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in=20 >>>>>> the media packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it understan= d the=20 >>>>>> TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). >>>>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way=20 >>>>> I read you statement, If this was true you would not need this draft = as the=20 >>>>> TLS would not need to be man in the middled. >>>>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which change the IP=20 >>>>> address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is something more=20 >>>>> than just this. If you and/or I are confused on this, I suspect=20 >>>>> much of the WG is just as confused. >>>>=20 >>>> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute,=20 >>>> which causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the=20 >>>> 4975 session matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it modifies = the UE=20 >>>> session matching mechanism. Again, we are talking about a *UE*=20 >>>> extension :) >>>>=20 >>>> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or confusion=20 >>>> expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG would not=20 >>>> be able to able to change the IP address/port in the same manner as a = NAT. >>>>=20 >>>> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG=20 >>>> to do just that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP=20 >>>> address/port) the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to terminate = TCP/TLS,=20 >>>> parse and modify the To-Path/From-Path of the MSRP messages :) >>>=20 >>> So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and understand SDP=20 >>> (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that just=20 >>> terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it would need to d= eal with=20 >>> in parsing changing SDP can be done with ICMP? That does not sound=20 >>> real likely to me. >>=20 >>That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order=20 >>to anchor the media, but it doesn't "parse" the media. >=20 >What does the ALG do if the SDP is malformed, or it otherwise fails to par= se it? It might reject the request that carries the SDP.=20 But, I don't really see how that is related to sessmatch. Regards, Christer From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 06:01:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE93728C112 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:01:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QhAL5YJqs+Td for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED8F28C0EE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-08-4d2db4cc1166 Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2F.76.23694.CC4BD2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:03:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:03:56 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Christer Holmberg , Ben Campbell Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:03:55 +0100 Thread-Topic: ALG assumptions [was: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting] Thread-Index: AcuyXKytVPv+BXplSiKpxEsyySdKuAAAKA5wAAD4BgA= Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A07571@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0753B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0753B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Cullen Jennings , "Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com" , Simple WG , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: [Simple] ALG assumptions [was: WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting] X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:01:42 -0000 Hi, I would just like to inform you that I am in the process of putting some te= xt together regarding the assumptions the sessmatch draft makes about ALGs = and their behavior. So, any input is welcome. I have no problem to add some text saying that it is assumed that an ALG wi= ll reject malformed SDP message bodies, if we think it is relevant for sess= match. Regards, Christer =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: simple-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg > Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2011 15:41 > To: Ben Campbell > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com; Simple WG;=20 > Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of=20 > draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting >=20 >=20 > Hi,=20 >=20 > >>>> Regarding error reporting: > >>>> -------------------------- > >>>>=20 > >>>>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in=20 > the media=20 > >>>>>> packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it=20 > understand the=20 > >>>>>> TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). > >>>>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way=20 > I read you=20 > >>>>> statement, If this was true you would not need this=20 > draft as the=20 > >>>>> TLS would not need to be man in the middled. > >>>>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which=20 > change the=20 > >>>>> IP address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is something=20 > >>>>> more than just this. If you and/or I are confused on this, I=20 > >>>>> suspect much of the WG is just as confused. > >>>>=20 > >>>> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute, which=20 > >>>> causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the > >>>> 4975 session matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it=20 > >>>> modifies the UE session matching mechanism. Again, we=20 > are talking=20 > >>>> about a *UE* extension :) > >>>>=20 > >>>> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or confusion=20 > >>>> expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG would=20 > not be able=20 > >>>> to able to change the IP address/port in the same manner=20 > as a NAT. > >>>>=20 > >>>> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG=20 > to do just=20 > >>>> that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP > >>>> address/port) the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to=20 > >>>> terminate TCP/TLS, parse and modify the To-Path/From-Path of the=20 > >>>> MSRP messages :) > >>>=20 > >>> So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and=20 > understand SDP=20 > >>> (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that just > >>> terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it=20 > would need=20 > >>> to deal with in parsing changing SDP can be done with ICMP? That=20 > >>> does not sound real likely to me. > >>=20 > >>That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order to anchor=20 > >>the media, but it doesn't "parse" the media. > >=20 > >What does the ALG do if the SDP is malformed, or it=20 > otherwise fails to parse it? >=20 > It might reject the request that carries the SDP.=20 >=20 > But, I don't really see how that is related to sessmatch. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > = From fluffy@cisco.com Wed Jan 12 06:07:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E85828C112 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:07:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.291 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9CoEOSjxIxBJ for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CEE28C108 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:07:51 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMtELU2rR7H+/2dsb2JhbACkPnOjUZhShUwEhGiGKIMg Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2011 14:10:11 +0000 Received: from [192.168.4.2] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0CEA9TS015954; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:10:09 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Cullen Jennings In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A07571@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:11:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <35A77FFA-4363-4604-A722-00630EC0A9F3@cisco.com> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se><7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se><3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0753B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A07571@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> To: "Christer Holmberg" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: Simple WG , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] ALG assumptions [was: WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting] X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:07:52 -0000 You need more than some assumptions, you need to define normative = language on how ALGs need to act with respect to this mechanism. On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I would just like to inform you that I am in the process of putting = some text together regarding the assumptions the sessmatch draft makes = about ALGs and their behavior. >=20 > So, any input is welcome. >=20 > I have no problem to add some text saying that it is assumed that an = ALG will reject malformed SDP message bodies, if we think it is relevant = for sessmatch. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: simple-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg > > Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2011 15:41 > > To: Ben Campbell > > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com; Simple WG; > > Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of > > draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting > > > > > > Hi, > > > > >>>> Regarding error reporting: > > >>>> -------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in > > the media > > >>>>>> packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it > > understand the > > >>>>>> TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). > > >>>>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way > > I read you > > >>>>> statement, If this was true you would not need this > > draft as the > > >>>>> TLS would not need to be man in the middled. > > >>>>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which > > change the > > >>>>> IP address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is something > > >>>>> more than just this. If you and/or I are confused on this, I > > >>>>> suspect much of the WG is just as confused. > > >>>> > > >>>> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute, which > > >>>> causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the > > >>>> 4975 session matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it > > >>>> modifies the UE session matching mechanism. Again, we > > are talking > > >>>> about a *UE* extension :) > > >>>> > > >>>> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or confusion > > >>>> expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG would > > not be able > > >>>> to able to change the IP address/port in the same manner > > as a NAT. > > >>>> > > >>>> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG > > to do just > > >>>> that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP > > >>>> address/port) the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to > > >>>> terminate TCP/TLS, parse and modify the To-Path/From-Path of = the > > >>>> MSRP messages :) > > >>> > > >>> So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and > > understand SDP > > >>> (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that just > > >>> terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it > > would need > > >>> to deal with in parsing changing SDP can be done with ICMP? = That > > >>> does not sound real likely to me. > > >> > > >>That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order to = anchor > > >>the media, but it doesn't "parse" the media. > > > > > >What does the ALG do if the SDP is malformed, or it > > otherwise fails to parse it? > > > > It might reject the request that carries the SDP. > > > > But, I don't really see how that is related to sessmatch. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ > > Simple mailing list > > Simple@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > > >=20 From ag@ag-projects.com Wed Jan 12 07:10:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879A228C126 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:10:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMAFQsZflC-Y for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2729828C123 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:10:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id A360BB01C3; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:13:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from imac3.fritz.box (mit.xs4all.nl [80.101.96.20]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D96A3B0193 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:13:02 +0100 (CET) From: Adrian Georgescu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:13:02 +0100 Message-Id: To: "simple@ietf.org WG" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:10:53 -0000 Dear SIP SIMPLE WG, for those who care or are responsible for the = conclusion of the works In the last three years I have implemented the following: 1. MSRP chat-server based on the MSRP-chatserver draft. Source code will = be soon available here http://sylkserver.com 2. MSRP client with support for all defined primitives related to MSRP = standards. Source code and implementation available in Blink = http://icanblink.com 3. MSRP Relay based on its RFC. Source code is available = http://msrprelay.org Now the problem ACM for MSRP is also implemented in Blink. But the ACM model no matter = how much I tried, and I really tried (read $$$ and man months), I could = not make it interoperate with 1, 2 or 3. So whatever is ACM based will = never talk to anything else despite that they share the protocol called = MSRP. My conclusion after all these years of coding MSRP based on the current = RFCs, I could not spot relevant flaws in the MSRP related RFC I have = implemented. They are good for the purpose, make technical sense and = for a developer are easy to understand and reasonable to implement = complexity wise. All except for the Alternative Connection Model. The = ACM stuff is completely out of place and breaks everything MSRP related = RFCs to date. I suggest that the ACM draft must explicitly mention the fact that it = does not interoperate through design with ANY of the other MSRP = entities. So that other developers do no get confused and waste time to = discover this simple fact. Regards, Adrian =20 From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 08:39:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910653A6A4B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:39:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNd3YR5Wuvw0 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664023A6824 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:39:39 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-fd-4d2dd9d6fb9f Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FA.5E.13987.6D9DD2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:41:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:41:58 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Cullen Jennings Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:41:57 +0100 Thread-Topic: ALG assumptions [was: [Simple] WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting] Thread-Index: AcuyYm/6U0ooIfbjTVKHNnRbPpFLCQAE/je3 Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A2297264D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71944@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se><7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A227DDD53@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se><3B2DCDC7-B536-4921-A6E5-E67C4AE1B73F@nostrum.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0753B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A07571@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <35A77FFA-4363-4604-A722-00630EC0A9F3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <35A77FFA-4363-4604-A722-00630EC0A9F3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Gonzalo, Simple WG , Camarillo Subject: Re: [Simple] ALG assumptions [was: WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting] X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:39:40 -0000 Hi, >You need more than some assumptions, you need to define normative language= on how ALGs need to act=20 >with respect to this mechanism. Any input is welcome. Regards, Christer On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > > I would just like to inform you that I am in the process of putting some = text together regarding the assumptions the sessmatch draft makes about ALG= s and their behavior. > > So, any input is welcome. > > I have no problem to add some text saying that it is assumed that an ALG = will reject malformed SDP message bodies, if we think it is relevant for se= ssmatch. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: simple-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg > > Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2011 15:41 > > To: Ben Campbell > > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Gonzalo@core3.amsl.com; Simple WG; > > Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC of > > draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-09 - Error reporting > > > > > > Hi, > > > > >>>> Regarding error reporting: > > >>>> -------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>>>> The ALG only rewrites the IP addresses/port numbers in > > the media > > >>>>>> packages. It is not TCP state aware, nor does it > > understand the > > >>>>>> TCP payload (MSRP or TLS/MSRP). > > >>>>>> The types of errors it can handle are on ICMP level. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I suspect we are talking past each other here - the way > > I read you > > >>>>> statement, If this was true you would not need this > > draft as the > > >>>>> TLS would not need to be man in the middled. > > >>>>> I'll point out that TLS works fine thought NATs which > > change the > > >>>>> IP address/port numbers so I suspect the use case is something > > >>>>> more than just this. If you and/or I are confused on this, I > > >>>>> suspect much of the WG is just as confused. > > >>>> > > >>>> Unlike a NAT, an ALG modifies the SDP a=3Dpath attribute, which > > >>>> causes a UE session matching failure mechanism (when using the > > >>>> 4975 session matching mechanism). The draft is needed, as it > > >>>> modifies the UE session matching mechanism. Again, we > > are talking > > >>>> about a *UE* extension :) > > >>>> > > >>>> As far as I know there has never been any claim, or confusion > > >>>> expressed by anyone else in the WG, that an ALG would > > not be able > > >>>> to able to change the IP address/port in the same manner > > as a NAT. > > >>>> > > >>>> In fact, the whole idea of sessmatch is to allow an ALG > > to do just > > >>>> that - ie to allow the ALG to tunnel (read: change IP > > >>>> address/port) the MSRP communication, WITHOUT forcing it to > > >>>> terminate TCP/TLS, parse and modify the To-Path/From-Path of the > > >>>> MSRP messages :) > > >>> > > >>> So you are saying an ALG needs to change modify and > > understand SDP > > >>> (I'd call this a B2BUA not an ALG but that just > > >>> terminology) but you are claiming that all the error it > > would need > > >>> to deal with in parsing changing SDP can be done with ICMP? That > > >>> does not sound real likely to me. > > >> > > >>That is normal ALG behavior. It modifies the SDP in order to anchor > > >>the media, but it doesn't "parse" the media. > > > > > >What does the ALG do if the SDP is malformed, or it > > otherwise fails to parse it? > > > > It might reject the request that carries the SDP. > > > > But, I don't really see how that is related to sessmatch. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ > > Simple mailing list > > Simple@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > > >= From ag@ag-projects.com Wed Jan 12 10:03:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8043A6A7A for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:03:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.857 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OOPejlX4YNeR for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:03:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D503A6A76 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id C97F7B01BB; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:05:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from imac3.fritz.box (mit.xs4all.nl [80.101.96.20]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61D95B0193; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:05:33 +0100 (CET) From: Adrian Georgescu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:05:33 +0100 Message-Id: To: Christer Holmberg Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:03:28 -0000 Dear Christer, Can you please explicitly mention in your draft that by implementing the = specifications described in it: 1. The SIP end-point that implements it will not be able to interoperate = with any other MSRP end-point, that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 = compliant, MSRP relay RFC 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver = draft-ietf-simple-chat-07 compliant. 2. The peer end-points must also implement the same specification and by = doing it they will break the intrinsic security properties built into = the MSRP protocol. Thank you, Adrian From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 11:16:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8F03A6A81 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:16:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F9rKPiEi9RKJ for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B078F3A6A75 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:16:47 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-9d-4d2dfeaa8632 Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 50.FC.13987.AAEFD2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:06 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Adrian Georgescu Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:05 +0100 Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt Thread-Index: Acuyg1XjtgdNzc2ERwawcPgJtR0UzwACWABB Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972656@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:16:48 -0000 Hi Adrian, (I noticed that I had previously sent my reply to you only, so I will re-se= nd to the list.) If there are limitations to the usage they can be documented. However, in order to do that I would need to know exactly what goes wrong, = and what doesn't work, so we can document it. We can't just say that something doesn't work, and ask people to download a= specific client in order to try to figure out why something doesn't work..= . Regards, Christer ________________________________________ From: Adrian Georgescu [ag@ag-projects.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:05 PM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: simple@ietf.org WG Subject: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt Dear Christer, Can you please explicitly mention in your draft that by implementing the sp= ecifications described in it: 1. The SIP end-point that implements it will not be able to interoperate wi= th any other MSRP end-point, that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 compliant, = MSRP relay RFC 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver draft-ietf-simple-chat-0= 7 compliant. 2. The peer end-points must also implement the same specification and by do= ing it they will break the intrinsic security properties built into the MSR= P protocol. Thank you, Adrian= From hisham.khartabil@gmail.com Wed Jan 12 21:58:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFED53A6A9B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:58:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MPukQsw3J7N for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523BD3A68A8 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so710966eyd.31 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:00:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Skwq4VF0PDvINB6VN8b/pDEw5q97CMjGAezvg4spxzs=; b=CzgE0E6g/1l4B5P3NKfHxzwLKmv9tP+uLQc4NBasgZQxI0d4rTYZ4pgoBL4IPYdmjn ffsB36N4w6oZqWJGe3FJmunb+apf5LERGWANl7gbTw4aIQPtQpagF16lW4fnk6Ke/CQ6 PQpSb9Zqw7U4X9ndYKjD5mYRmumm+krnb6i4g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=nbAmFoYRsSW20iT2JIVu5vQ1Y+hlmnSZD4e91/8gJkLr/RIrboX4cEFYA3TtErTEgZ RPR+Ma7NZVCIhe1UOHIgeg9tZe1dCQvq/JC6oxm19MvvKtcSoeBRorTEzzXbbPR535tW 0x7VYYMcOk9/yQPvZqyottFubV0XFbF3MnAes= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.47.71 with SMTP id s47mr1372677eeb.17.1294898431741; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.53.3 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:00:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972656@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972656@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:00:31 +1100 Message-ID: From: Hisham Khartabil To: Christer Holmberg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba5bb8d30b511b0499b40966 Cc: Adrian Georgescu , "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:58:13 -0000 --90e6ba5bb8d30b511b0499b40966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Christer, You are saying that you thought about it and believe nothing can go wrong, or that you haven't thought about it? Thanks, Hisham On 13 January 2011 06:19, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > (I noticed that I had previously sent my reply to you only, so I will > re-send to the list.) > > If there are limitations to the usage they can be documented. > > However, in order to do that I would need to know exactly what goes wrong, > and what doesn't work, so we can document it. > > We can't just say that something doesn't work, and ask people to download a > specific client in order to try to figure out why something doesn't work... > > Regards, > > Christer > > ________________________________________ > From: Adrian Georgescu [ag@ag-projects.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:05 PM > To: Christer Holmberg > Cc: simple@ietf.org WG > Subject: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt > > Dear Christer, > > Can you please explicitly mention in your draft that by implementing the > specifications described in it: > > 1. The SIP end-point that implements it will not be able to interoperate > with any other MSRP end-point, that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 compliant, > MSRP relay RFC 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver draft-ietf-simple-chat-07 > compliant. > > 2. The peer end-points must also implement the same specification and by > doing it they will break the intrinsic security properties built into the > MSRP protocol. > > Thank you, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > --90e6ba5bb8d30b511b0499b40966 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Christer,

You are saying that you thought about it and believe nothi= ng can go wrong, or that you haven't thought about it?

Thanks,Hisham

On 13 January 2011 06:19, Christ= er Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Adrian,

(I noticed that I had previously sent my reply to you only, so I will re-se= nd to the list.)

If there are limitations to the usage they can be documented.

However, in order to do that I would need to know exactly what goes wrong, = and what doesn't work, so we can document it.

We can't just say that something doesn't work, and ask people to do= wnload a specific client in order to try to figure out why something doesn&= #39;t work...

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: Adrian Georgescu [ag@ag-project= s.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:05 PM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: simple@ietf.org WG
Subject: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt

Dear Christer,

Can you please explicitly mention in your draft that by implementing the sp= ecifications described in it:

1. The SIP end-point that implements it will not be able to interoperate wi= th any other MSRP end-point, that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 compliant, = =A0MSRP relay RFC 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver draft-ietf-simple-chat= -07 compliant.

2. The peer end-points must also implement the same specification and by do= ing it they will break the intrinsic security properties built into the MSR= P protocol.

Thank you,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

--90e6ba5bb8d30b511b0499b40966-- From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 22:37:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0742C3A6AB0 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:37:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlDZ-ejjJHZz for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:37:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672093A6AAB for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:37:11 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-86-4d2e9e23b535 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CB.08.23694.32E9E2D4; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:39:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:39:30 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Hisham Khartabil Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:39:29 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt Thread-Index: Acuy5zAVgSNPiWEYQsSLe9/06cLC0AABDNLg Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0778F@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972656@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Adrian Georgescu , "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:37:13 -0000 Hi,=20 >You are saying that you thought about it and believe nothing can go wrong,= or that you haven't thought about it? Thought about what? All I see is a comment that ACM doesn't work, but no de= scription of what goes wrong... Regards, Christer =09 =09 On 13 January 2011 06:19, Christer Holmberg wrote: =09 Hi Adrian, =09 (I noticed that I had previously sent my reply to you only, so I will re-= send to the list.) =09 If there are limitations to the usage they can be documented. =09 However, in order to do that I would need to know exactly what goes wrong= , and what doesn't work, so we can document it. =09 We can't just say that something doesn't work, and ask people to download= a specific client in order to try to figure out why something doesn't work= ... =09 Regards, =09 Christer =09 ________________________________________ From: Adrian Georgescu [ag@ag-projects.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:05 PM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: simple@ietf.org WG Subject: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt =09 Dear Christer, =09 Can you please explicitly mention in your draft that by implementing the = specifications described in it: =09 1. The SIP end-point that implements it will not be able to interoperate = with any other MSRP end-point, that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 compliant= , MSRP relay RFC 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver draft-ietf-simple-chat= -07 compliant. =09 2. The peer end-points must also implement the same specification and by = doing it they will break the intrinsic security properties built into the M= SRP protocol. =09 Thank you, Adrian _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple =09 From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 12 22:40:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51A13A695B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:40:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46t5MjC7ah2J for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44423A686E for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-d4-4d2e9f014571 Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.09.13987.10F9E2D4; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:43:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.81]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:43:13 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Christer Holmberg , Hisham Khartabil Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:43:12 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt Thread-Index: Acuy5zAVgSNPiWEYQsSLe9/06cLC0AABDNLgAABbJJA= Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A07791@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972656@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0778F@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22A0778F@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Adrian Georgescu , "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:40:55 -0000 Of course I have thought about interoperability with non-ACM entities, and = in my opinion there is no issue. But, again, since I don't know what the problem is I can't refer to any spe= cific thoughts... Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: simple-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg > Sent: 13. tammikuuta 2011 8:39 > To: Hisham Khartabil > Cc: Adrian Georgescu; simple@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt >=20 >=20 > Hi,=20 >=20 > >You are saying that you thought about it and believe nothing=20 > can go wrong, or that you haven't thought about it? >=20 > Thought about what? All I see is a comment that ACM doesn't=20 > work, but no description of what goes wrong... >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer >=20 >=20 > =09 > =09 > On 13 January 2011 06:19, Christer Holmberg=20 > wrote: > =09 >=20 > Hi Adrian, > =09 > (I noticed that I had previously sent my reply=20 > to you only, so I will re-send to the list.) > =09 > If there are limitations to the usage they can=20 > be documented. > =09 > However, in order to do that I would need to=20 > know exactly what goes wrong, and what doesn't work, so we=20 > can document it. > =09 > We can't just say that something doesn't work,=20 > and ask people to download a specific client in order to try=20 > to figure out why something doesn't work... > =09 > Regards, > =09 > Christer > =09 > ________________________________________ > From: Adrian Georgescu [ag@ag-projects.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:05 PM > To: Christer Holmberg > Cc: simple@ietf.org WG > Subject: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt > =09 >=20 > Dear Christer, > =09 > Can you please explicitly mention in your draft=20 > that by implementing the specifications described in it: > =09 > 1. The SIP end-point that implements it will=20 > not be able to interoperate with any other MSRP end-point,=20 > that being MSRP end-point RFC 4975 compliant, MSRP relay RFC=20 > 4976 compliant and MSRP chatserver draft-ietf-simple-chat-07=20 > compliant. > =09 > 2. The peer end-points must also implement the=20 > same specification and by doing it they will break the=20 > intrinsic security properties built into the MSRP protocol. > =09 > Thank you, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > =09 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > = From ben@nostrum.com Wed Jan 12 23:26:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204B3A695B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:26:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.204 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6M-0qNPY5PuI for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9333A68A8 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.234.182] (166-205-137-052.mobile.mymmode.com [166.205.137.52] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0D7SbPL038347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:28:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) From: Ben Campbell Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:28:22 -1000 To: Adrian Georgescu Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 166.205.137.52 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Cc: "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:26:31 -0000 Hi Adrian, To clarify, are you really talking about ACM (i.e. Using COMEDIA) vs sessmat= ch (i.e.relaxing session matching rules to make life easier for SBC) For the record, ACM was intended to allow fallback to the 4975 usage when th= e peer does not support COMEDIA. Can you elaborate on the failure cases? Thanks, Ben. On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Dear SIP SIMPLE WG, for those who care or are responsible for the conclusi= on of the works >=20 > In the last three years I have implemented the following: >=20 > 1. MSRP chat-server based on the MSRP-chatserver draft. Source code will b= e soon available here http://sylkserver.com >=20 > 2. MSRP client with support for all defined primitives related to MSRP sta= ndards. Source code and implementation available in Blink http://icanblink.= com >=20 > 3. MSRP Relay based on its RFC. Source code is available http://msrprelay.= org >=20 > Now the problem >=20 > ACM for MSRP is also implemented in Blink. But the ACM model no matter how= much I tried, and I really tried (read $$$ and man months), I could not ma= ke it interoperate with 1, 2 or 3. So whatever is ACM based will never talk t= o anything else despite that they share the protocol called MSRP. >=20 > My conclusion after all these years of coding MSRP based on the current RFC= s, I could not spot relevant flaws in the MSRP related RFC I have implemente= d. They are good for the purpose, make technical sense and for a developer a= re easy to understand and reasonable to implement complexity wise. All excep= t for the Alternative Connection Model. The ACM stuff is completely out of p= lace and breaks everything MSRP related RFCs to date. >=20 > I suggest that the ACM draft must explicitly mention the fact that it does= not interoperate through design with ANY of the other MSRP entities. So tha= t other developers do no get confused and waste time to discover this simple= fact. >=20 > Regards, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From t.sudhirkumar@gmail.com Thu Jan 13 02:00:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D901D3A6ABA for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:00:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IkCmCrZIn9w2 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101B83A6AF1 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so675842gwj.31 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:02:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=kvb+bHH+xgK4zeiYzgf9Mq5LLmz9ctLk1ogEeiB2hmM=; b=hKcgHJr1ZGr3RCords8snIvy1xueYBkiumCfpzlbjZKQqGFoVDgSDdKeqBv+sVQ5d3 RbItKlJR0YwgprPFm1q46/nC0q4HlT2EcyU3WTRdfD+0lax383KQ2VEuKkC1z1Qvi1ND NmCMbWaRVhLr9Y/AhDSYmzNaxH/fAxvXtgZgI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=gfQHb3RdRbrjY6QW/2TNib6sNKqGfhAdd5wQ3vyRgDaTlUSIweO3PRQqLoQD70RFR2 T1qFz2OqZgH2YxC8QRNlEIXcQsoDGA5RY91YJ0vhXyG1dfORCzioJ7wZg7/tIB87Z3aZ F1PgTcWEOFLuRO4gAyd01iTHaiR2pvGt0SHTc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.62.19 with SMTP id k19mr2866869aga.180.1294912968801; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:02:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.117.20 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:02:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:32:48 +0530 Message-ID: From: Sudhir Kumar To: simple Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016362836b68540260499b76b7f Subject: [Simple] Query on MSRP X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:00:30 -0000 --0016362836b68540260499b76b7f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All, Apologies if I'm asking something out of the scope of this forum. However I believe there are RCS/MSRP experts who can advice me on the following query. How is different MSRP(RFC 4975) implementing in non-RCS and RCS environments i.e. File transfer and Message(session mode) transfers are implemented different in RCS/non-RCS environments? Any response is highly appreciated Regards, Sudhir --0016362836b68540260499b76b7f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,

=A0

Apologies if I'm asking somethi= ng out of the scope of this forum.

=A0

However I believe there are RCS/MSR= P experts who can advice me on the following query.

How is different MSRP(RFC 4975) implementing in non-RCS and RCS environment= s i.e. File transfer and Message(session mode) transfers are implemented diff= erent in RCS/non-RCS environments?

=A0

= =A0Any response is highly appreciated

Regards,

Sudhir

--0016362836b68540260499b76b7f-- From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Tue Jan 18 07:44:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11B628C1D7 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:44:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7sYlmXSxnLDQ for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3413828C1C4 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:44:41 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b89ae0000036a3-67-4d35b605e2b4 Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5F.7F.13987.506B53D4; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:47:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.246] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:47:17 +0100 Message-ID: <4D35B605.6030900@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:47:17 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell References:

In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Adrian Georgescu , "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:44:42 -0000 Hi, as you all know, the ACM draft is already in the RFC Editor's queue. So, any discussions on this issue should happen sooner rather than later. Cheers, Gonzalo On 13/01/2011 9:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > To clarify, are you really talking about ACM (i.e. Using COMEDIA) vs sessmatch (i.e.relaxing session matching rules to make life easier for SBC) > > For the record, ACM was intended to allow fallback to the 4975 usage when the peer does not support COMEDIA. Can you elaborate on the failure cases? > > Thanks, > > Ben. > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > >> Dear SIP SIMPLE WG, for those who care or are responsible for the conclusion of the works >> >> In the last three years I have implemented the following: >> >> 1. MSRP chat-server based on the MSRP-chatserver draft. Source code will be soon available here http://sylkserver.com >> >> 2. MSRP client with support for all defined primitives related to MSRP standards. Source code and implementation available in Blink http://icanblink.com >> >> 3. MSRP Relay based on its RFC. Source code is available http://msrprelay.org >> >> Now the problem >> >> ACM for MSRP is also implemented in Blink. But the ACM model no matter how much I tried, and I really tried (read $$$ and man months), I could not make it interoperate with 1, 2 or 3. So whatever is ACM based will never talk to anything else despite that they share the protocol called MSRP. >> >> My conclusion after all these years of coding MSRP based on the current RFCs, I could not spot relevant flaws in the MSRP related RFC I have implemented. They are good for the purpose, make technical sense and for a developer are easy to understand and reasonable to implement complexity wise. All except for the Alternative Connection Model. The ACM stuff is completely out of place and breaks everything MSRP related RFCs to date. >> >> I suggest that the ACM draft must explicitly mention the fact that it does not interoperate through design with ANY of the other MSRP entities. So that other developers do no get confused and waste time to discover this simple fact. >> >> Regards, >> Adrian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Simple mailing list >> Simple@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple > From ibc@aliax.net Wed Jan 19 09:28:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB3A28C0D8 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:28:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.194 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcy7AXGBwaxh for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09C928C0EB for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:28:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so1210700qwi.31 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:30:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.99.76 with SMTP id t12mr803459qcn.275.1295458239230; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.24.213 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:30:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:30:39 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= To: Adrian Georgescu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:28:05 -0000 2011/1/12 Adrian Georgescu : > I suggest that the ACM draft must explicitly mention the fact that it doe= s not interoperate through design with ANY of the other MSRP entities. So t= hat other developers do no get confused and waste time to discover this sim= ple fact. Hi Adrian, perhaps it would be useful if you point the exact issues of ACM specification (I mean those points that break compatibility/interoperability with non-ACM MSRP peers). BTW, it is sad the fact that an expertised implementor working with MSRP for 3 years complains in this way about a draft (next to become and RFC) and nobody in this group cares or replies him. Just my opinion. Regards. --=20 I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Wed Jan 19 11:01:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBA33A719F for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYAfuKXsYdyW for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2077A3A71A1 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-af-4d3735a7d5a6 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 58.5F.23694.7A5373D4; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:04:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.33]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:03:27 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= , Adrian Georgescu Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:03:26 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity Thread-Index: Acu3/p03U9OhcClESeWGohBSbD/CKAAC+S85 Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972691@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:01:28 -0000 Hi, >>I suggest that the ACM draft must explicitly mention the fact that it doe= s not interoperate through design with ANY of the other MSRP entities. So t= hat other developers do no get confused and waste time to discover this sim= ple fact. > >Hi Adrian, perhaps it would be useful if you point the exact issues of >ACM specification (I mean those points that break >compatibility/interoperability with non-ACM MSRP peers). > >BTW, it is sad the fact that an expertised implementor working with >MSRP for 3 years complains in this way about a draft (next to become >and RFC) and nobody in this group cares or replies him. Just my >opinion. I don't know what you mean by "nobody cares". At least Ben, Gonzalo and mys= elf have asked Adrian to clarify the issue. I am not going to add statement= s that something doesn't work unless I know WHY it doesn't work. Because, t= he reason also needs to be documented. It is very important to note that the draft has changed during the process.= In the beginning the ACM draft also contained the stuff that is now in the= SESSMATCH draft. And, in addition the SESSMATCH part is different today fr= om what it was in the beginning.=20 Regards, Christer= From t.sudhirkumar@gmail.com Thu Jan 20 04:46:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC3A3A70F4 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:46:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggyYxcCnfEjZ for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:46:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402923A6F6E for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:46:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so175854yxt.31 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:48:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=hMQ13fxI/JcZQnrhiucqeJns2c4lrVAbU2sqQ47q9D0=; b=pSFB/CZIRDeFYEKaMmp0vBq2k/rnHv32mhTDlz44PdcGKo803q3D6WG2n4gBqdy48J G9xYsPbmC5h/RkH7xXlZH6Mx6OSanhbsSCCFSzoFEhM1jy6FjpkMsFT2K5m6kixV4dpb KK6FO5y8dxUejrXv2VGrQpCr/jhowBaYsZidg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=RCnfWgmYy5b/Gsbg6XkKuzpT05TfsqNyklOfrBvLRfaPSenBoZjv6PSmjAHF+F9RAi CDezNJ06IpkaLvol5pP17/5RC3FQrMhxZCt8z7UIqhG6/i2ynigpI2AjY9q1ujRlcz4H b0EACMdmcXMZh0Quf1CiidwMlqTmQH+l3UwTQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.87.17 with SMTP id k17mr2568958agb.80.1295527728906; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.34.20 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:48:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:18:48 +0530 Message-ID: From: Sudhir Kumar To: simple Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e836e1409ea049a468ee4 Subject: [Simple] any free RCS application server X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:46:07 -0000 --0016361e836e1409ea049a468ee4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All, Ss there any opensource RCS application sever for testing purposes? Any response is appreciated Regards Sudhir --0016361e836e1409ea049a468ee4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 All,

Ss there any opensource RCS application sever for testing purposes?

Any response is appreciated

Regards

Sudhir

--0016361e836e1409ea049a468ee4-- From ibc@aliax.net Thu Jan 20 08:23:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B173A7155 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KK8w2dXJSr8y for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98E43A7149 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so821236qwi.31 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:26:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.224.212 with SMTP id ip20mr1875141qcb.237.1295540767907; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.24.213 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:26:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972691@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References:

<7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850A22972691@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:26:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= To: Christer Holmberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Adrian Georgescu , "simple@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:23:25 -0000 2011/1/19 Christer Holmberg : >>BTW, it is sad the fact that an expertised implementor working with >>MSRP for 3 years complains in this way about a draft (next to become >>and RFC) and nobody in this group cares or replies him. Just my >>opinion. > > I don't know what you mean by "nobody cares". At least Ben, Gonzalo and m= yself have asked Adrian to clarify the issue. I am not going to add stateme= nts that something doesn't work unless I know WHY it doesn't work. Because,= the reason also needs to be documented. I understand your point, and I agree that the reporter should include exact description about the specification topics not working (those breaking interoperability). However I'd really would like somebody to argument here that MSRP peers can interoperate with MSRP+ACM peers, by providing some example. If not, it seems like a discussion betweeen papers (which always compile) and a real attempt of implementation. This is, can somebody ensure that MSRP peers can interoperate with no problem with MSRP+ACM peers? Regards. --=20 I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jan 24 03:25:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBDD3A684B for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:25:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.516, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QFwnQZzyee55 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D9D3A6845 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p0OBSMtC007777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:22 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:22 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: Christer Holmberg , =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= , Adrian Georgescu Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:22 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Simple] ACM does not interoperate with any other MSRP entity Thread-Index: Acu3/p03U9OhcClESeWGohBSbD/CKAAC+S85AC1WacA= Message-ID: References: ,