On Jul 22, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
A few more comments, starting with the examples:
11.1 - the numbering of the messages doesn't agree with what is in the diagram. Also, message 5 is missing a blank line between Content-Type and the body.
11.3 - I find the sysadmin example highly unlikely. Why would MSRP (rather than page mode MESSAGE) be used for this? A session would first have to be established. This would only make sense if there was already a session established, or there was expectation that many such messages will be sent using the same session.
OK, would a better example be to have a conference owner say "this conference is about to end"?
Yes, that is a much better one! (Wish I had thought of it.)
12. Extensibility
I believe the decision was that we didn't need version numbers because sessions are established using another protocol (e.g. SIP) which can handle version negotiation. But we don't have any provision for versions there either. The only options I can see that are open for revisions are:
- use a different scheme name (not msrp) in the urls. (ugh)
That is sort of what I was assuming...
- invent a new a-line to carry versioning information that can be negotiated.
Another possibility, if we plan now, is to put a little more extensibility into the msrp url, such as:
MSRP_urls = msrp-scheme "://" server ["/" resource] ";" transport *( ";" msrp-option ) server = [userinfo "@"] hostport msrp-scheme = "msrp" / "msrps" resource = 1*unreserved transport = "tcp" / token msrp-option = gen-param
This would of course require a change to the comparison rules for urls, and could make comparison somewhat more complex.
I think we just have a clear idea of a workable strategy for moving to a revised protocol.
I don't have a strong opinion here. Others?
I'm pretty confident that this protocol will need to be revised.
Paul
_______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple