Re: draft-ietf-impp-im-01

Dave,

Thank you for the many good questions you raised.  Let me just comment
on whether or not implementations MUST or SHOULD support the format
defined in MSGFMT.  In the Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol
Requirements document, RFC 2779, in section 4.1.1, it states:

4.1. Common Message Format

   4.1.1. All ENTITIES sending and receiving INSTANT MESSAGES MUST
   implement at least a common base format for INSTANT MESSAGES.

Unless we plan to change the requirements, I believe Jon must change
the SHOULD into a MUST in Section 3.3 of draft-ietf-impp-im-01.txt.
Without a common format, it's hard to see how one can provide
end-to-end security, which, I believe, is the reason a common message
format was made a requirement.  RFC 2779 has been around for almost
three years, so this requirement is not new.

John

Dave Crocker <[email protected]> writes:

>    important properties for interoperability can only be provided if a
>    common end-to-end format for instant messaging is employed by the
>    interoperating instant messaging protocols.  Implementations
>    therefore SHOULD support the format defined in MSGFMT [4].
> <<
>    [[ "should" made sense when this was a spec for translating among
>    heterogeneous systems.  The spec now is for relaying among systems that
>    use the same end-to-end content (and addressing) syntax and semantics.
>    Therefore, the requirement now must be a MUST.  /d]]
> >>



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]