Re: [Simple] I-DAction: draft-hellstrom-simple-text-transmission-00.txt - the need

[Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>]

On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

>
> What do you mean by "the transport system"?  I thought the argument  
> we were
> making was for using MSRP as the transport.  Honestly, I would think  
> that if
> we present a strong-enough case for the first question ("why RTT?"),  
> then I
> suspect there would be little debate over using MSRP.  And, I still  
> think
> those arguing against MSRP have weaknesses in their systems.  Our  
> engineers
> certainly were open to it.

The problem as I understand it is fundamental to the way MSRP is  
currently specified.

MSRP relays may (and probably will) bundle up small packets into large  
ones. That is, they'll strip the real-time right out of the text.

Now, I personally feel MSRP is over-specified. It has all sorts of  
neat capabilities for muxing and controlling independent flows that  
I've heard it said we've reinvented SCTP. But it is what it is, and  
that's an awkward beast for carrying RTT.

To meet the requirements of RTT, we need something that is lighter  
than MSRP, but still has the reliability and congestion control of TCP.

I think this makes RTT an ideal candidate for something like the TOTE  
session protocol described in:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-tote-00.txt

I'm interested in getting a BOF going to look at multi-purpose session  
protocols suitable for end-to-end use in a session initiated by SIP or  
other rendezvous protocols. I think RTT provides a great use-case for  
such a protocol.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple