Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt)

Congratulations and thanks to Christer, Staffan, and Eric, as well as everyone who engaged in the discussion on this list and in the WG meetings. This has been a long, hard, process.

This leaves only two drafts remaining on the SIMPLE charter!

Thanks!

Ben.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Simple] Protocol Action: 'Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA)	for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)' to Proposed	Standard (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt)
> Date: July 6, 2012 8:54:16 AM CDT
> To: IETF-Announce <[email protected]>
> Cc: simple chair <[email protected]>, simple mailing list <[email protected]>, RFC Editor <[email protected]>
> 
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message
>   Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)'
>  (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt) as Proposed Standard
> 
> This document is the product of the SIP for Instant Messaging and
> Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
> RFC4976 describes how to use MSRP over special purpose MSRP relays, in order
> to traverse NATs and firewalls, and to allow network policy enforcement.
> However, many networks use other middleboxes for this purpose for other
> SIP-signaled media, and would like to use the same middleboxes for MSRP.
> This draft describes an extension to MSRP to make it easier for them to do
> so.
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
> The goal of the draft that this one replaced
> (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch) was controversial in the SIMPLE work
> group. The authors of RFC4975 and 4976 initially objected to the
> modification of the protocol to make it more friendly to non-standardized
> middleboxes such as SBCs. However, those objections were generally secondary
> to security related objections that the older draft interfered with some TLS
> use cases. The working group has a consensus that the security issues do not
> apply to the current draft.
> 
> In summary, draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-03 still extends the MSRP protocol
> to make it more friendly to middleboxes such as SBCs. The work group
> believes it does no incremental harm when compared with the case of using
> MSRP as defined in RFC4975 in the presence of such middleboxes--which would
> either result in communication failure, or the failure to anchor media at
> the middlebox.
> 
> Document Quality
> 
> Multiple participants have implemented or indicated an intent to implement
> it.
> 
> Personnel
> 
> The document shepherd for this document is Hisham Khartabil.
> 
> The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple