On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
3) The backwards comparability issue seems huge. Some people have said an
endpoint using this draft will not talk with one that only does 4975. Yet if
this draft if published as an RFC would basically depreciate the 4975 and
replace it
[As SIMPLE co-chair]
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch has some significant additions from the
version for which we originally requested publication. I implore everyone who
cares one way or another about this draft to re-review it as soon as they are
able.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 15, 2010, at
My two cents. Having implemented both models in Blink client (Blink is a free
download if someone cares and wants to experiment with both MSRP models), I can
comment that I do not like the acm model. The relay model is simply better,
cleaner and more secure.
Adrian
On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:27
Both of them
--
Adrian
On Oct 14, 2010, at 17:58, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Are you referring to the COMEDIA support in msrp-acm, the session matching
change in msrp-sessmatch, or both?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hi,
I am going to send this draft back to the SIMPLE WG so that they discuss
these issues. Once the WG reaches (rough) consensus on what to do, I
will be issuing a second IETF LC so that everybody is on the same page.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
On 14/10/2010 11:27 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
The new
I have reviewed the updated draft, and I believe it to be much clearer in intent
and in which modifications to the underlying matching semantics are present.
If it were to progress in its current form, I would not have any
technical objections.
While it is still somewhat confusing to have a URI
I have reviewed the updated draft, and I believe it to be much clearer in intent
and in which modifications to the underlying matching semantics are present.
If it were to progress in its current form, I would not have any
technical objections.
While it is still somewhat confusing to have a URI
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the diff line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently complex that it would almost certainly be better to apply
the edits and re-spin
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the diff line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently
The new draft is clearer but I still don't think it addresses my concerns. I
would say at this point they could be summarized as
1) The draft is very hard to review without doing the diffs to 4975. To try and
help instead of just complain, I'm willing to go back patch these changes into
the
Hi Adrian,
Are you referring to the COMEDIA support in msrp-acm, the session matching
change in msrp-sessmatch, or both?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
My two cents. Having implemented both models in Blink client (Blink is a free
download if someone
Hi,
Christer has submitted a new revision of this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch/
Those of you who sent IETF LC comments on this draft, could you please
have a look at the new version and let Christer know if he has addressed
your concerns?
Thanks,
Hi,
Based on the secdir comments/discussions regarding sessmatch, we have submitted
a new version of the draft (-07).
The major changes are:
- It is clarified that the MSRP URI comparison rules are not changed, and
that the rules are not used for session matching
- It is
; The IETF; sec...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch
(as individual)
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Cullen,
Do these changes allow an SBC on the signaling path to change the
contents of the MSRP messages without the end
I wanted to make a quick response to one part of this discussion--see below:
On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975 does not require
session-ids to be present, a fact noted both in the ABNF and in this
text:
4. The session-id
(as individual)
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Cullen,
Do these changes allow an SBC on the signaling path to change the contents
of the MSRP messages
without the end points being able to detect that? I'm sure it will be easier
to answer this once we have
a
Hi Ted,
Thanks for your message and your consideration of the points I raised.
Given the
scope of changes below, my first suggestion is that the author team actually
go ahead with a draft incorporating these changes, so that we can discuss
based on the actual text. I also suspect that a
Hi Ted,
Comments inline.
Thanks for your message and your consideration of the points I raised.
Given the scope of changes below, my first suggestion is that the author team
actually
go ahead with a draft incorporating these changes, so that we can discuss
based on the actual text. I also
Hi Cullen,
Do these changes allow an SBC on the signaling path to change the contents of
the MSRP messages
without the end points being able to detect that? I'm sure it will be easier
to answer this once we have
a new draft.
Sessmatch does not make it any easier for an SBC in the signalling
Hi Christer,
Thanks for your message and your consideration of the points I raised.
Given the
scope of changes below, my first suggestion is that the author team actually
go ahead with a draft incorporating these changes, so that we can discuss
based on the actual text. I also suspect that a
Do these changes allow an SBC on the signaling path to change the contents of
the MSRP messages without the end points being able to detect that? I'm sure it
will be easier to answer this once we have a new draft.
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:53 , Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Christer,
Thanks for your
Hi,
The purpose of this e-mail is to address the secdir comments given by Richard
Barnes and Ted Hardie. Due to summer vacations, standardization meetings
etc it took a while to put the e-mail together, and we appologise for that.
GENERAL
===
First, the draft does NOT propose any changes to
Hardie [mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29. kesäkuuta 2010 20:37
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: Richard L. Barnes; sec...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; The
IETF; draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessma...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch
In-line.
On Tue, Jun 29
Hi Ted,
I join Richard in believing that this document makes changes
beyond that which could be understood as updating the MSRP
URI scheme processing.
To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975 does not require
session-ids to be present, a fact noted both in the ABNF and
in this text:
In-line.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Christer Holmberg
christer.holmb...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi Ted,
I join Richard in believing that this document makes changes
beyond that which could be understood as updating the MSRP
URI scheme processing.
To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments
I join Richard in believing that this document makes changes beyond that
which could be understood as updating the MSRP URI scheme
processing.
To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975 does not require session-ids
to be present, a fact noted both in the ABNF and in this text:
4. The
27 matches
Mail list logo
