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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 5/27/11 1:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> [...]Below I reply yo your suggestion of non using record-routing.
> [...]
> I like discussions as they are the best way to learn from other people :)
Inaki, you come back mixing badly everything. I expected (and even 
mentioned that in previous email) you will hit the record routing thing 
to argue a irrelevantly, it is what you did - that was an example of a 
mechanism (e.g., compared with *-Path), but you found something you 
could reply to and show it related to voice calls. The proxy is not 
allowed to interfere with negotiation of the session paramters, thank 
you for reminding that, and we have calls going through NAT because of 
following it.

I wonder if you really read to understand or just spot 'single concepts' 
to make them out of the context in order to reply something. That is 
endless and topic breaker.

You admit MSRP is very much SIP (**what I said, the whole point and 
therefore I am done here** -- MSRP is _useless_, no value added), but, 
for example, with TLS enforcement - thank you, we need another new 
protocol for that because sounds cool -- big fail, imo (note that TLS is 
not part of SIP structure, it is a transport layer).

You think too much of sip at it was specified for voice calls ("an use 
case"), you cannot escape that thus you cannot see how flexible it is 
and what one can do with it. Perhaps same did those coming up with a new 
very large set of new protocols that try to exceed PSTN list of 
terms/abbreviations.  RFC3261 is mainly exemplified with how to use SIP 
for voice calls, but not restricted to - forget the examples in the rfc, 
look at protocol architecture. But, indeed, on the other hand, it is 
also more cool to say 'I am author of a protocol" than of a 
"specifications for an use case".

I saw a presentation of msrp years ago, I understood it does not worth a 
penny, but I didn't want to debate that since I saved time not looking 
deeper at it. Decision to obsolete it confirms that -- this does not 
mean that the new one is better, it means the old one is rather useless.
To end the thread, just for your reference, here is a google result of 
how windows messenger did session IM, 6 years ago:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/95300-35-messenger-sends-receiving-invite

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda