Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-chat-14.txt

Hi Saul,

Thanks for your comments. Inline replies.



On 02/03/2012 9:21, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi, Miguel,
>
> I just read it and what I mentioned has been addressed as discussed :-)
>
> A couple of minor things, though:
>
> In section 4: "All messages in the chat room use the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper content
>     type [RFC3862]..."
>
> and a bit later, in section 5: "The conference focus of a chat room MUST include support for a	
>     Message/CPIM [RFC3862] top-level wrapper for the MSRP messages by	 	   Message/CPIM [RFC3862]"
>
> I see that support for CPIM is a MUST for the Focus, but the behavior of the Focus if an endpoint doesn't support it could be unclear. Should CPIM be a MUST also for endpoints joining a chat room? IMHO it should.



The spirit of the draft is to support "conference-aware" and 
"conference-unaware" participants. The latter include: those not 
understanding the SIP "isfocus" extension, and those not supporting this 
draft.

Conference-unaware participants can join the chat room and send and 
receive regular messages, but will not be able to send private messages, 
use anonymous URIs, or use nicknames. These conference-unaware 
participants will not read this draft, so we cannot put procedures to 
this type of user agents. We could say something about how the focus and 
MSRP switch treats conference-unaware participants, but I believe it is 
"business as usual", e.g., applying the conference framework.

So, the draft focuses on User Agents that implement this draft, and as 
such, mandates the usage of Message/CPIM. See third paragraph in Section 6.1:

    The SEND request MUST contain a top-level wrapper of type 'Message/
    CPIM' according to RFC 3862 [RFC3862].  The actual instant message
    payload MUST be included as payload of the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper and
    MAY be of any type negotiated in the SDP 'accept-types' attribute
    according to the MSRP rules.

and later in 6.2:

    When a chat room participant wishes to send a private instant message
    to a participant in the chat room, it follows the same procedures for
    creating a SEND request as for regular messages (Section 6.1).  The
    only difference is that the MSRP endpoint MUST populate a single To
    header of the Message/CPIM wrapper with the identifier of the
    intended recipient.

So, I believe there is a mandate for conference-aware participants to use 
Message/CPIM.



>
> In section 7.1: "The user can select a different nickname and retry
>     another NICKNAME request. nickname is not allocated to this user"."
>
> There seems to be an editing mistake after the dot.

Oh, yes, thanks for the catch. It will be fixed in version -15. The text 
after the dot should not be present there.

/Miguel


>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> AG Projects
>
>
>

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain