Re: [XCON] draft on MSRP conferencing

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

Miguel Garcia wrote:

> > This would, as I said before, be a senseless increase in protocol 
> > complexity and consequently a barrier to interoperability.
>
>
> I disagree here. The protocol's complexity is not increased heavily, 
> the draft currently proposes a new method and a new header. I wouldn't 
> consider a new method and a new header an "increase in protocol 
> complexity", taking into account the benefit. It does not create a 
> barrier to interoperability, because the draft does not require an 
> extension to receive private messages. The extension is only required 
> to the sender and the MSRP switch.


You misunderstand. Any protocol that provides two ways to accomplish the 
same task is more complicated than a protocol that provides only one.

/a

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon