Re: [Simple] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-05.txt
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Mon, 30 November 2009 16:08 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
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 6BB183A6912 for <simple@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:08:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 yAkIFfQX5wis for <simple@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36DF53A67A8 for <simple@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApAFAEd8E0tAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACZKKhqiHuNdoIvC4F3BI1Q
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,314,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="70975706"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2009 16:08:16 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAUG8Gm4005804; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:08:16 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-212.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.100]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:08:16 -0500
Received: from [161.44.174.156] ([161.44.174.156]) by xfe-rtp-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:08:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4B13EDF5.5050306@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:08:21 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hisham Khartabil <hisham.khartabil@gmail.com>
References: <66cd252f0911151915m724a0d0drebd39240c2256b56@mail.gmail.com> <66cd252f0911250255p1da871c3i388708b7017c5ba@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <66cd252f0911250255p1da871c3i388708b7017c5ba@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2009 16:08:16.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[53620300:01CA71D7]
Cc: Simple WG <simple@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Simple] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-05.txt
X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions <simple.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple>
List-Post: <mailto:simple@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:08:25 -0000
Hisham Khartabil wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Do you think you can give the chat draft a quick wglc review? > > Thanks, > Hisham Hisham, I had missed this. Here is a *quick* review of the document. I do find a few things missing. ISSUES/CONCERNS: Section 5.2: If a participant wants to remain anonymous to the rest of the participants in the conference, the participant's UA can register or acquire by other means a temporary GRUU with the conference focus. The procedure SHOULD follow the recommendation of draft-ietf-sip-gruu [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu]. The temporary GRUU can be used in the From and To header in the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper concealing the participant's SIP AOR from the other participants in the conference. Does this mean REGISTER with the focus server to obtain a gruu? That presumes it will permit such a thing. Because this is somewhat unusual behavior, I think it needs some explanation of what is envisioned. (For instance it seems likely that the client would be registering its *AOR* as a *contact* with the chat room.) Also, this should probably be shown in the call flows. Section 6.1: Do we expect that the sender will always use the same URI used when establishing the dialog with the chat room? Or might it be using something else that must be independently verified by the MSRP switch? (I see later in the examples that they do sometimes differ.) If it can differ, then I assume the switch only allows certain values to be used. So something needs to be said about how this usage is to be verified. If it is the URI used when establishing the dialog, and its an anonymous gruu, then hopefully something will be said about how that is verified as being acceptable if the chat room restricts admission. I gather the expectation is that if its an anonymous gruu, then it isn't just *any* anonymous gruu, but only one that was issued by a registrar associated with the chat room, and the mapping to the actual identity is known. (This is also hinted at in 9.6. But not called out explicitly.) Section 6.3: participants URI associated with a participant. If the URI in the To header can not be resolved (e.g. cased by a mistyped URI or that the recipient has abandoned he chat room), the response error code is 427. The new 427 status code indicates a failure to resolve the recipient URI in the To header field. If the recipient doesn't Why is a new error code required? ISTM that the sip 404 code is appropriate here, and could be borrowed into MSRP rather than inventing a new code. Section 7.1: There is good detail of how to request and be granted use of a nickname. But there is no normative language about how to use the nickname once it has been received, either by the sender or the recipient. This goes back to my earlier question about the relationship between the From in MSRP and the URI used to connect to the focus. I later see in the examples, that the nickname is being combined with the domain name of the focus to create a sip uri (with some escaping being done to make it legal). If that is the intent, then it needs better explanation. On the receiving side, I suppose it is intended that the user part of the URI be rendered as the sender, rather than the full URI. But how would the recipient know to do that? It can't do so with all URIs, so how does it know this one is special? This seems to require more technical work to be fully sorted out. NITS: Section 6.1: An MSRP endpoint that receives a SEND request from the MSRP switch containing a Message/CPIM wrapper SHOULD first inspect the To header field of the Message/CPIM body. If the To header field is set to the chat room URI, it should render it is a regular message that has been s/it should render it is a/it should render it as a/ Section 6.3: participants URI associated with a participant. If the URI in the To header can not be resolved (e.g. cased by a mistyped URI or that the s/cased/caused/ Section 9.2: MSRP d93kswow NICKNAME To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp Use-Nickname: "Alice the great" -------d93kswow$ Figure 7: MSRP NICKNAME request with an initial nickname proposal F2: The MSRP switch analyzes the existing allocation of nicknames and detects that the nickname "Alice is great" is already provided to another participant by the conference. The MSRP switch answers with a 423 response. The nicknames used in the request and response are different.
- [Simple] WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-05.txt Hisham Khartabil
- Re: [Simple] WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-05.txt Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Simple] WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-05.txt Geir Arne Sandbakken
- Re: [Simple] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Simple] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-… Geir Arne Sandbakken
- Re: [Simple] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-simple-chat-… Paul Kyzivat