Subject: [Simple] I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-chat-14.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:39:50 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Multi-party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
	Author(s)       : Aki Niemi
                          Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
                          Geir A. Sandbakken
	Filename        : draft-ietf-simple-chat-14.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2012-03-01

   The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) defines a mechanism for
   sending instant messages within a peer-to-peer session, negotiated
   using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP).  This document defines the necessary
   tools for establishing multi-party chat sessions, or chat rooms,
   using MSRP.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-chat-14.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-chat-14.txt

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:50:43 +0100

I have just submitted a new version of the SIMPLE chat room draft. This 
one does not yet consider the internationalization and normalization of 
nicknames, which is scheduled for version -15.

This version -14 addresses comments by Cullen, Suresh, Christer, and 
Saul. Please guys, verify that your changes are implemented according to 
your needs, and if you are not totally satisfied, you can still complain 
and we will fix it in version -15.

Diff with the previous version:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-simple-chat-14

/Miguel

On 02/03/2012 8:39, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:21:53 +0100

Hi, Miguel,

I just read it and what I mentioned has been addressed as discussed :-)

A couple of minor things, though:

In section 4: "All messages in the chat room use the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper content
   type [RFC3862]..."

and a bit later, in section 5: "The conference focus of a chat room MUST include support for a	
   Message/CPIM [RFC3862] top-level wrapper for the MSRP messages by	 	   Message/CPIM [RFC3862]"

I see that support for CPIM is a MUST for the Focus, but the behavior of the Focus if an endpoint doesn't support it could be unclear. Should CPIM be a MUST also for endpoints joining a chat room? IMHO it should.

In section 7.1: "The user can select a different nickname and retry
   another NICKNAME request. nickname is not allocated to this user"."

There seems to be an editing mistake after the dot.

Regards,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:13:02 +0100

Hi Saul,

Thanks for your comments. Inline replies.

> I see that support for CPIM is a MUST for the Focus, but the behavior of the Focus if an endpoint doesn't support it could be unclear. Should CPIM be a MUST also for endpoints joining a chat room?…

The spirit of the draft is to support "conference-aware" and 
"conference-unaware" participants. The latter include: those not 
understanding the SIP "isfocus" extension, and those not supporting this 
draft.

Conference-unaware participants can join the chat room and send and 
receive regular messages, but will not be able to send private messages, 
use anonymous URIs, or use nicknames. These conference-unaware 
participants will not read this draft, so we cannot put procedures to 
this type of user agents. We could say something about how the focus and 
MSRP switch treats conference-unaware participants, but I believe it is 
"business as usual", e.g., applying the conference framework.

So, the draft focuses on User Agents that implement this draft, and as 
such, mandates the usage of Message/CPIM. See third paragraph in Section 6.1:

    The SEND request MUST contain a top-level wrapper of type 'Message/
    CPIM' according to RFC 3862 [RFC3862].  The actual instant message
    payload MUST be included as payload of the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper and
    MAY be of any type negotiated in the SDP 'accept-types' attribute
    according to the MSRP rules.

and later in 6.2:

    When a chat room participant wishes to send a private instant message
    to a participant in the chat room, it follows the same procedures for
    creating a SEND request as for regular messages (Section 6.1).  The
    only difference is that the MSRP endpoint MUST populate a single To
    header of the Message/CPIM wrapper with the identifier of the
    intended recipient.

So, I believe there is a mandate for conference-aware participants to use 
Message/CPIM.

> There seems to be an editing mistake after the dot.

Oh, yes, thanks for the catch. It will be fixed in version -15. The text 
after the dot should not be present there.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:35:29 +0100

Hi Miguel,

> 
> The spirit of the draft is to support "conference-aware" and "conference-unaware" participants. The latter include: those not understanding the SIP "isfocus" extension, and those not supporting this draft.
> 
> Conference-unaware participants can join the chat room and send and receive regular messages, but will not be able to send private messages, use anonymous URIs, or use nicknames. These conference-unaware participants will not read this draft, so we cannot put procedures to this type of user agents. We could say something about how the focus and MSRP switch treats conference-unaware participants, but I believe it is "business as usual", e.g., applying the conference framework.
> 

Yes, that makes sense.

> So, the draft focuses on User Agents that implement this draft, and as such, mandates the usage of Message/CPIM. See third paragraph in Section 6.1:
> 
> So, I believe there is a mandate for conference-aware participants to use Message/CPIM.
> 

Apologies, I somehow didn't notice those paragraphs on my quick read. It's just fine as it is.

Regards,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:55:46 -0500

Hi Miguel,
  Your changes look good to me. Thanks for taking care of this.

Cheers
Suresh