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

Hi Miguel,

> 
> 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.
> 

Yes, that makes sense.

> 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.
> 

Apologies, I somehow didn't notice those paragraphs on my quick read. It's just fine as it is.


Regards,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects