Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-05.txt

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 23, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 
>> 
>>> Section 5 (and subsections)
>>> 
>>> The diagram does not show the transport (e.g. TCP) connection
>>> establishment for MSRP. I think it would be useful to do so.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> (It would also be useful to mention that we're assuming that an MSRP client uses the SIP "binding" to communicate with the MSRP conference server, see Section 6...)
>> 
>>> Also,
>>> the active endpoint (the one opening the transport connection) has to
>>> send an immediate MSRP SEND request once the connection is
>>> established. (I don't _think_ simple-chat extended that to allow an
>>> initial NICKNAME to replace that--but I may have missed it.)
>> 
>> Good catch.
>> 
> 
> While you are right, Ben, isn't that implied? I mean, obviously there needs to be a TCP connection, which needs to be bound and so on, but if we go down that rabbit-hole we would need to also say that it could happen if reverse if ACM is being used... so, perhaps we can assume (or add a note about it) that a working MSRP connection established using standard mechanisms and then we send the NICKNAME over it?

Explicit is better than implicit. I don't think we have to show every possible variation in setting up an MSRP session, just like we don't show every SIP variation (but a note to that effect could be helpful.) I think the fact that the connection setup for MSRP is handled differently than that for XMPP is an important concept for this draft.

Which of course makes me wonder if connection management on the XMPP side should be mentioned.

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> AG Projects
> 
> 
>