Subject: [Simple] WGLC Summary for draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-10

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:18:41 -0500

Hi,

This is a summary of the WGLC feedback for the MSRP base draft 
(draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-10). If I have missed anything, 
please let me know.

Thanks!

Ben.

------------------------------------------

Add IANA registries for methods, headers, and status codes.

Clarify the difference between messages with no bodies and messages 
with empty bodies. Clarify purpose of initial SEND reqyuest on a new 
session,.

Add MSRP/TLS/TCP in sdp usage

Current draft says success-report and failure-report are only legal in 
SEND. For the sake of extensibility, change this so say they must not 
be used in REPORT. This allows future extensions to perhaps use them. 
(This would require the relay draft to disallow them for AUTH as well.)

Clarify language around incremental success reports.

Clarify that the delivery timer is started when all the bytes in a 
chunk have been sent to the TCP stack for delivery. In most OS's, it is 
not possible to know when the last byte is possibly sent. If some 
special purpose OS can do this better, then it should be allowed to do 
so.

Clarify language about overlapping chunks with non-identical content. 
The latest received chunk SHOULD be used if it is reasonable to do so. 
However, their may be situations where this is not reasonable. For 
example, if the endpoint has already rendered the original chunk, it 
may not be alble to change it.

Explicitly allow extensability of MSRP URLs with parameters.

Update reference to rfc2396bis to RFC 3986

A few editorial and typo fixes

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:29:06 -0400

Ben Campbell wrote:

> example, if the endpoint has already rendered the original chunk, it may 
> not be alble to change it.

I still think it would be better to state that content of overlapping 
chunks MUST be identical, but not require that the error be detected.

	Paul