[SR-Users] [OT] IETF SIMPLE WG will destroy MSRP with the new draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-11

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 5/25/11 9:33 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> [...]
>
> PS. Guys, before implementing SIP-related RFC N, where N is greater 
> than 4000, wait until RFC N+3000 is published to see if there will be 
> one obsoleting it. If not, you may be safe investing time in it.
on the other hand, I think MSRP didn't bring much value, just another 
type of stream out of signaling channel. I am not that familiar with 
MSRP to know really if there are real benefits, but sending instant 
messaging over SIP was there from beginning and rather simple without 
other components that introduce new points of failure.

Reducing the number of optional headers will make the messages also 
quite small. As for path optimization, initial request creating the 
dialog could get only record-routes from the SIP hops that are intended 
to stay in the path (like the relay).

For file transfer,  clunking the content and sending over several 
requests (again with minimum number of headers) with proper cseq 
incrementation will be a straightforward implementation.

SIP can be used in very simple ways, without new types of protocols and 
communication channels...

Cheers,
Daniel
>
> On 5/25/11 1:00 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Hi, for those interested in MSRP protocol (instant message sessions
>> and file transfer for SIP) there are bad news:
>>
>> Even if there are already clients and servers (MSRP relays o IM
>> conference servers) implementing the MSRP protocol (RFC 4975 and 4976)
>> the SIMPLE WG will publish a new draft [*] that breaks these RFC's
>> just to satisfy big vendors interested in deploying MSRP capable
>> SBC/ALG boxes (so instead of solving NAT issues with MSRP relays as
>> RFC 4976 states, they want it to be fixed in the router by doing ugly
>> ALG, or in a SBC). This is terrible because all the MSRP devices
>> should implement this new draft in order to interoperate (no backward
>> compatibility at all). The draft also breaks the security defined in
>> RFC 4975 (for example, TLS name based authentication cannot work
>> anymore).
>>
>> For further information I recommend reading these two posts:
>>
>>    
>> http://blog.tekelec.com/blog/bid/29816/More-on-MSRP-Session-Match-Extension
>>    
>> http://blog.tekelec.com/blog/bid/33138/MSRP-Session-Match-Backwards-Compatibility
>>
>> and also these very *hot* mail threads in the SIMPLE maillist:
>>
>>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg09227.html
>>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg09229.html
>>
>>
>>
>> [*] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-11
>>
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com