Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <> Thu, 13 February 2014 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBFA1A02BC for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:17:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.049
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKcnExCaxD16 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06471A01F1 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:17:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1775; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392304663; x=1393514263; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vR5ddpuvqbKqfarNlBQt3Lte1n7JDn+nYNLM+ACOTBA=; b=D94NpmBIR19lKbNSuFoLzf2H/TO+bz4ZdaHb9GmXV7w6OONEQtDdn15J KUmnFsQr9NNLZsjeVSdV3WuTK4Hzwi5+2DbRtriXeWaXfXzCeIjk7Eyex i+yKEfiX7tkdheR2Ie6+TM3uTc1bLKCA/QizS/WCHnsmnOV6Iso/Qo815 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,839,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="20193132"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 15:17:43 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DFHhps016558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:17:43 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:17:43 -0600
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPKM69Gzr1Sxm0FkKTa2Dy1OUwAA==
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:17:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ben Campbell <>, DISPATCH <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:17:54 -0000

Hi Mary - 

Thanks for taking the time to review the document.  We have published an -05 that (hopefully) addresses all your feedback.  

Inline, trimming to only the points requiring responses...

On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Mary Barnes <> wrote:

> I have agreed to shepherd this document.  I've reviewed the document in anticipation of doing the PROTO write-up and have the following comments and questions.  Ben Campbell has agreed to do the required expert review and that should be posted within the next week or so.    This is also a good time for anyone in the WG that hasn't previously reviewed this document to review and provide any final comments.  Note, that this document was agreed to be AD sponsored around the IETF-86 timeframe.
> Regards,
> Mary. 
> Review Summary: Almost ready. Comments & questions below.


> 5) Section 10.1. Since securing the connection is just RECOMMENDED, what are the implications and risks if the MSRP traffic isn't transported over a secure connection? 

Other review comments indicated that it was problematic to downgrade the 4976 MUST requirement for TLS between a client and a server. Thus, the document has been updated so that MSRP traffic transported over WebSockets MUST be protected by using a secure WebSocket connection (i.e., using TLS).  I believe this renders this point moot.


> 8) It's typical for documents that are updating existing RFCs to have a section that summarizes the updates to the existing RFCs that are made by this document.  

This was the intent of Sections 5.2 and 5.3.  Is this sufficient? Or did you have something else in mind?