Subject: [Simple] RFC 4976 is a well defined standard

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:36:52 +0100

Hello,

As the maintainer of the MSRP relay open source project I completely  
disagree with the idea of deprecating RFC 4976. The open source MSRP  
relay serves now a +50,000 user base of at http://sip2sip.info and  
made possible new SIP applications that were not envisaged before like  
desktop sharing.

The fact that commercially speaking the MSRP relay does not appeal to  
some SBC vendors cannot constitute a reason for deprecating a  
standard. I have found no technical issues with the deployment of the  
relay in the last 12 months of operations.

The fact that not many people talk about it on discussion lists does  
not mean that is not working or that is an irrelevant topic.

The software simply works and RFC 4976 is good example of well  
designed IETF standard.

Yours sincerely,
Adrian Georgescu
AG Projects

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:36:31 -0600

Thanks, Adrian.

I was the one who mentioned deprecation. I don't think anyone else has  
mentioned officially deprecating it per se. Just to be clear, I don't  
_want_ to deprecate it, but I am afraid that the current proposals to  
create a SBC/ALG friendly alternative would effectively split MSRP  
implementations into two "profiles" that won't talk to each other. If  
there were no deployments of RFC 4976, it might have made sense to  
just move on and update MSRP to follow the proposed c-line mechanism  
in Christer's draft.

But given the sip2sip user base, it's pretty clear that market demand  
for 4976 does exist.

So, I am in favor of work to make MSRP work better in the presence of  
SBCs/ALGs, but I believe that any such effort _must_ allow endpoints  
behind SBCs to interoperate with peers that are behind MSRP relays.

On Feb 24, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:

> made possible new SIP applications that were not envisaged before  
> like desktop sharing.
>
> The fact that commercially speaking the MSRP relay does not appeal  
> to some SBC vendors cannot constitute a reason for deprecating a  
> standard. I have found no technical issues with the deployment of  
> the relay in the last 12 months of operations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:37:15 -0500

Hi Adrian,
I did not and was not advocating deprecating RFC 4976.  We could argue about the relative success of it, in the grand scheme of things, but it would not be productive.  All we're arguing about is whether an alternative connection and deployment model needs to interwork with MSRP Relays, or not.

Since AG-Projects' msrprelay.org project is as far as I know the canonical example of an actual MSRP Relay, what do you think?  Do you care?

-hadriel

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Georgescu
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:37 AM

As the maintainer of the MSRP relay open source project I completely disagree with the idea of deprecating RFC 4976. The open source MSRP relay serves now a +50,000 user base of at http://sip2sip.info and made possible new SIP applications that were not envisaged before like desktop sharing.
The fact that commercially speaking the MSRP relay does not appeal to some SBC vendors cannot constitute a reason for deprecating a standard. I have found no technical issues with the deployment of the relay in the last 12 months of operations.
The fact that not many people talk about it on discussion lists does not mean that is not working or that is an irrelevant topic.
The software simply works and RFC 4976 is good example of well designed IETF standard.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Georgescu
AG Projects

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:31:24 +0100

Hi Hadriel,

One property of MSRP protocol and its relay extension is that is a  
straight forward standard with no choices. Now hypothetically if I  
would be again at the decision point to implement a NAT traversal  
solution with two or more possible IETF ways to do it, I would  
probably give up as I would not have an idea which choice is better  
long term and it would be difficult to ask customers for a choice  
either. Same dilema will be faced by any developer or operations  
manager as the modes are mutually exclusive.

If this draft helps your company sell more boxes then I guess is for  
you worth pursuing, personally I do not see a good reason to create  
now in 2009 yet another backwards incompatible standard for NAT  
traversal for MSRP.

There is a saying that if you want to kill something just add choices,  
people will get bogged down in choosing and arguing forever and little  
will get done.

Adrian

On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> I did not and was not advocating deprecating RFC 4976.  We could  
> argue about the relative success of it, in the grand scheme of  
> things, but it would not be productive.  All we’re arguing about is  
> whether an alternative connection and deployment model needs to  
> interwork with MSRP Relays, or not.
>
> Since AG-Projects’ msrprelay.org project is as far as I know the  
> canonical example of an actual MSRP Relay, what do you think?  Do  
> you care?
>
> -hadriel
>

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:42:59 +0100

Hi, 

First, I am not saying we should deprecate RFC 4976 either. I also think
the question is whether we require interoperability with users behind
relays.

Currently nodes behind SBCs in many cases won't be able to communicate
with anyone (including sip2sip.info users), and for the MSRP protocol I
think that is much worse than having some use-cases which may not work.
It's not only about making a few SBC vendors happy.

>One property of MSRP protocol and its relay extension is that is a
straight forward standard with no choices. Now hypothetically if I would
be again at the decision point to implement a NAT traversal 
>solution with two or more possible IETF ways to do it, I would probably
give up as I would not have an idea which choice is better long term and
it would be difficult to ask customers for a choice 
>If this draft helps your company sell more boxes then I guess is for
you worth pursuing, personally I do not see a good reason to create now
in 2009 yet another backwards incompatible standard for NAT 
>traversal for MSRP.

You don't need to create a new NAT traversal standard - you can use
existing ones.

Regards,

Christer

		Hi Adrian,
	I did not and was not advocating deprecating RFC 4976.  We could
argue about the relative success of it, in the grand scheme of things,
but it would not be productive.  All we're arguing about is whether an
alternative connection and deployment model needs to interwork with MSRP
Relays, or not.
		Since AG-Projects' msrprelay.org project is as far as I
know the canonical example of an actual MSRP Relay, what do you think?
Do you care?
		-hadriel
		________________________________

		From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Georgescu
	Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:37 AM

	As the maintainer of the MSRP relay open source project I
completely disagree with the idea of deprecating RFC 4976. The open
source MSRP relay serves now a +50,000 user base of at
http://sip2sip.info and made possible new SIP applications that were not
envisaged before like desktop sharing.
	The fact that commercially speaking the MSRP relay does not
appeal to some SBC vendors cannot constitute a reason for deprecating a
standard. I have found no technical issues with the deployment of the
relay in the last 12 months of operations. 
	The fact that not many people talk about it on discussion lists
does not mean that is not working or that is an irrelevant topic.
	The software simply works and RFC 4976 is good example of well
designed IETF standard. 
	Yours sincerely,
	Adrian Georgescu
	AG Projects