Minutes - SIMPLE - IETF72 Summary: The interdomain-federation draft is ready for WGLC, which will likely occur in late August or September. The view-sharing draft is getting close to ready and needs detailed review. The chairs will be recruiting reviewers. There was quite a bit of discussion around supporting a comedia connection establishment model for MSRP and how it impacts the use of MSRP relays. There is strong interest in taking on supporting comedia connections as a WG effort. There is not yet consensus to adopt a particular document as a starting point. Additional list discussion (including further discussion of the opaque path proposal) is expected. The MSRP discussions overran the agenda time for group presence. Please review Henning's presentation and provide comments to the list. Raw Notes follow: ---------------------------------------------------- Notes on SIMPLE at IETF 72 reported by Dean Willis Chaired by Robert Sparks and Hisham Khartabil Note Well presented Agenda accepted as presented Chairs present status and administrivia updates. Topic: Interdomain Federation led by Jonathan Rosenberg slides presented Changes since last version reviewed. Result: Plan on WGLC late August or September. Please review before then. Topic: View Sharing led by Jonathan Rosenberg slides presented Pre-WGLC reviewers asked to volunteer. Topic: Alternative COnnection Model for MSRP led by Christer Holmberg slides presented Noted that correct draft here is draft-blau-simple-msrp-acm-00 Noted that this draft is not an alternate solution, but if adopted it replaces draft-denis-simple-msrp-comedia. Issue: C and M line usage Noted that WG went over this many times and decided they could not use C and M lines due to relays. So this usage is contradictory with use of MSRP relay; so if a relay is used (for the many things relays might be used for) this approach will preclude use of relays. Question: Is it time to deprecate MSRP relays? Noted that at least one developer has received RFP requests for relays within the last year. Question: Is there any real reason to not have two ways to relay MSRP? Question: B2BUAs have the fundamental flaw of modifying messages without consent of endpoints. Is it reasonable to make this our only architecture? Question: Is it possible to use comedia without using the c and m lines? If it is, then we could easily use both relay approaches. Noted by another vendor that all current requests are for B2BUA or comedia relays, and not MSRP relays. Noted that in the SIP world, many users are busily removing B2BUAs for scaling. Should we be putting b2BUAs into MSRP? Response that MSRP relays have exactly the same scaling issue, and we'd be better off figuring out how to crosss NATs at the transport layer. Noted by chairs: We haven't seen much uptake on relays, but this doesn't seem to be a fault of the protocol. It would not seem reasonable to deprecate the MSRP relay function at this time. Noted that the model proposed in this draft requires a relay-model decision at call setup time. This may result in non-interoperable clients. This might require negotiation of comedia based on pre-knowledge of relay behavior. Question: What has changed since the arguments that led us to develop MSRP relays? JDR thinks that the initial model of shared TCP connections between relays/carriers/enterprises has not developed, so people care less about it. We should not be afraid to learn from industry experience. Noted that we really don't have very much deployment experience with this protocol. Noted that the need for relays has diminished with the increased TCP capacity of modern OS. Noted that MSRP relays may make pushback on congestion more difficult than TCP. Suggested that perhaps we should have just used SIP to set up an XMPP session. Issue: detailed ICE text. Proposed that document not discuss in detail Poll: Should WG take on effort of negotiating comedia? Strong response yes. Poll: Is this draft a good starting point for the discussion? Response mixed. Topic: Opaque Path led by Hadriel Kaplan slides presented Issue: MSRP Relay Scaling Noted that the MSRP relay has other functions that may be hard with a comedia relay. Suggested that these might be doable on a non-transparent signaled relay. Issue: Proposed Solution Noted that connection sharing may not be important to nodes using the proposed solutions. Privacy was discussed, with the potential impacts on anonymity noted. Noted that we may not be able to support all the uses of MSRP relays. Poll: Who read this draft? (few). Who understands? (fewer). Question: This means we don't need a relay and it won't work with one. Anonymization requires a B2BUA and a TURN server (and the turn server alone could have provided anon with current arch). One argument for this approach is more efficient processing of messages. Is that enough to justify adding an SBC for anonymization? Conclusion: We do have group interest in comedia and will further discuss on the list. Noteed that last presentation was dropped from the agenda.