headers
internet-drafts | 16 Aug 2012 09:42
Picon
Favicon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group
of the IETF.

	Title           : Multi-party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
	Author(s)       : Aki Niemi
                          Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
                          Geir A. Sandbakken
	Filename        : draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2012-08-16

Abstract:
   The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) defines a mechanism for
   sending instant messages within a peer-to-peer session, negotiated
   using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP).  This document defines the necessary
   tools for establishing multi-party chat sessions, or chat rooms,
   using MSRP.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-simple-chat

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-chat-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-simple-chat-16
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Miguel A. Garcia | 16 Aug 2012 10:18
Picon
Favicon

Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt

We have just submitted a new version of the SIMPLE chat draft.

This version fixes an aligns the example of a notification from the 
conference event package (Section 9.6) with the published RFCs 6501 and 
6502. In particular, 'nickname' is an attribute of <user>. In older 
versions of these documents, nickname used to be an child element of <user>.

Besides, we have fixed a few nits revealed by idnits.

 From the authors' perspective, the draft is ready for requesting 
publication.

/Miguel

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:42:02 +0200
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
To: simple-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org <simple-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org>, 
draft-ietf-simple-chat <at> tools.ietf.org 
<draft-ietf-simple-chat <at> tools.ietf.org>, rjsparks <at> nostrum.com 
<rjsparks <at> nostrum.com>

A new version (-16) has been submitted for draft-ietf-simple-chat:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-simple-chat/

Diff from previous version:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé | 16 Aug 2012 12:41
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-simple-chat-16.txt


On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> We have just submitted a new version of the SIMPLE chat draft.
> 
> This version fixes an aligns the example of a notification from the conference event package (Section
9.6) with the published RFCs 6501 and 6502. In particular, 'nickname' is an attribute of <user>. In older
versions of these documents, nickname used to be an child element of <user>.
> 
> Besides, we have fixed a few nits revealed by idnits.
> 
> From the authors' perspective, the draft is ready for requesting publication.
> 

+1.

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
rfc-editor | 25 Aug 2012 01:20
Favicon

RFC 6714 on Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6714

        Title:      Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring 
                    (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay 
                    Protocol (MSRP) 
        Author:     C. Holmberg, S. Blau,
                    E. Burger
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       August 2012
        Mailbox:    christer.holmberg <at> ericsson.com, 
                    staffan.blau <at> ericsson.com, 
                    eburger <at> standardstrack.com
        Pages:      22
        Characters: 50543
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6714.txt

This document defines a Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
extension, Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA).
Support of this extension is OPTIONAL.  The extension allows
middleboxes to anchor the MSRP connection, without the need for
middleboxes to modify the MSRP messages; thus, it also enables secure
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
prasun bheri | 27 Aug 2012 10:14
Picon

Regarding MSRP(rfc 4975)

Hello Group,


I have two queries in regard to rfc 4975 (MSRP)

1. When a local end point receives a REPORT request that contains a message id which is not known to local end point, what should be done?
Is it ok to respond with 400 Bad request?

2. When a Request or Response is received with unknown session id local EP should respond with 481 transaction response. 
in this case, while building 481 response should the from-path contain a session id or not?

Thanks & Regards
Prasun Bheri



_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
prasun bheri | 27 Aug 2012 11:06
Picon

Re: Regarding MSRP(rfc 4975)

Hi,

Got the answer to first question. response should not be given for report. second question. leave the session id empty in from path.

Thanks & Regards
Prasun


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, prasun bheri <prasun.bheri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Group,

I have two queries in regard to rfc 4975 (MSRP)

1. When a local end point receives a REPORT request that contains a message id which is not known to local end point, what should be done?
Is it ok to respond with 400 Bad request?

2. When a Request or Response is received with unknown session id local EP should respond with 481 transaction response. 
in this case, while building 481 response should the from-path contain a session id or not?

Thanks & Regards
Prasun Bheri



 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ben Campbell | 27 Aug 2012 15:39
Favicon

Re: Regarding MSRP(rfc 4975)

In regards to question 2--you also do not respond to a response.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:06 AM, prasun bheri <prasun.bheri <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
Got the answer to first question. response should not be given for report. second question. leave the session id empty in from path.

Thanks & Regards
Prasun


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, prasun bheri <prasun.bheri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Group,

I have two queries in regard to rfc 4975 (MSRP)

1. When a local end point receives a REPORT request that contains a message id which is not known to local end point, what should be done?
Is it ok to respond with 400 Bad request?

2. When a Request or Response is received with unknown session id local EP should respond with 481 transaction response. 
in this case, while building 481 response should the from-path contain a session id or not?

Thanks & Regards
Prasun Bheri

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane