Subject: [Simple] msrp-acm: 2 Separate Extensions

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:36:16 -0600

Hi,

I've been working through draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-00, and have a  
few new thoughts about it. I am breaking these up into separate  
emails, to try to avoid discussion thread confusion.

I think we should be more clear on the separation between the COMEDIA  
and the C-Line connection model bits of this draft. My understanding  
is that they are completely orthagonal, is this correct? Or does one  
require the other?

 From a process perspective, I don't think the COMEDIA bits are  
controversial. I would even support those as MUST level updates to the  
base MSRP spec. OTOH, I think the C-line connection part needs further  
discussion and work.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:24:56 +0100

Hi Ben, 

>I've been working through draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-00, and have a few
new thoughts about it. I am breaking these up into separate emails, to
try to avoid discussion thread confusion.
>I think we should be more clear on the separation between the COMEDIA
and the C-Line connection model bits of this draft. My understanding is
that they are completely orthagonal, is this correct? Or does 
>one require the other?
controversial. I would even support those as MUST level updates to the
base MSRP spec. OTOH, I think the C-line connection part needs 
>further discussion and work.

The c-line connection part is optional, and the COMEDIA part can be used
without it.

I have tried to indicate that in a few places in the draft, but if you
think it needs to be further clarified I am happy to add/modify text.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:45:05 -0600

On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>> few
> is

Is it true the other way around? That is, can the c-line part be used  
without COMEDIA? I assume so, but if that is stated explicitly, I  
missed it.

> think it needs to be further clarified I am happy to add/modify text.

I see a "note" that the comedia part can be used without the c-line  
part late in the introduction. But the introduction still casts both  
mechanism as part of a singular "alternative connection model". I  
think it would be helpful to state something to the effect of the  
following early in the introduction:

  "This draft proposes two alternate mechanisms to the connection  
model defined in RFC 4975. The first is the use of COMEDIA to control  
the direction of the TCP connection. The second is the use of the SDP  
C-line to carry transport information for the TCP peer. These  
mechanisms can be used together, or independently of each other"

Thanks,

Ben.