[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Simple] MSRP-ACM compatibility
Hi,
In fact, chapter 4.1.2 talks about TLS, and already says that RFC 4572 (which defines the fingerprint attribute) shall be used.
But, I guess we can add some additional text which describes what we have been discussing.
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: simple-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:55 PM
To: Hisham Khartabil; Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] MSRP-ACM compatibility
Hi,
>1) We seem to have consensus that it must be possible for MSRP devices
>using ACM to talk to devices using relays.
>
>We don't have consensus on how far we are willing to update
>RFC4975/4976 to accomplish this. We don't have consensus around any
>currently proposed mechanism to accomplish the requirement.
As far as I know, the only proposed mechanism is to change the session mapping procedure, to only take the user part into account.
But, that proposal is related to the TLS issue, so we we need to move that forward before we can make a decission.
Regards,
Christer
> 2009/4/1 Hisham Khartabil <hisham.khartabil at gmail.com>:
> > The MSRP-ACM draft has an open requirements question on backwards
> > compatibility with endpoints that use MSRP relays. In San Francisco
> > some 20 or so people raised their hands one way or another on this
> > question, yet only a much smaller number have engaged in the list
> > discussion.
> >
> > Please offer your opinions on the following questions. We'd
> appreciate
> > the reasoning behind your opinions, rather than just yes or
> no votes.
> > We'd really like to hear from every person who raised a hand in San
> > Francisco. If you stated an opinion at the microphone,
> please restate
> > it here.
> >
> > 1) Is there a requirement for an endpoint that uses the C-line
> > addressing mechanism in the MSRP-ACM draft to be able to talk to an
> > endpoint that uses an MSRP relay (RFC 4976).
> >
> > 2) If you said yes to 1), is it acceptable to update RFC
> 4975 and/or
> > RFC 4976 to achieve compatibility? If so, how extensively?
> >
> > Much appreciated,
> > Hisham
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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