Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt

(As individual)

On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:49 AM, Olle E Johanson <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 29 jan 2013 kl. 15:17 skrev Ben Campbell <[email protected]>:
> 
>> (as chair)
>> 
>> We had a WGLC on version 06 of draft-ietf-simple-simple some time (as in years) ago. It's been on hold since then to allow the other SIMPLE work to substantially complete. Since our penultimate milestone (simple-chat) has recently been approved by the IESG, it's time to progress simple-simple and complete our final chartered milestone.
>> 
>> The only non-trivial change between 06 and 08 was the split of the entry for the old msrp-acm draft into separate entries for RFC 6135 (COMEDIA for MSRP) and RFC 6174 (CEMA), to account for the split of that draft.
>> 
>> After conferring with the author and our AD, I think these changes are pretty obvious and not likely to be controversial. Therefore we plan to request publication of version 08. If anyone objects to that course of action, please speak up asap.
> 
> Ok, I know I had years to make a comment, but anyway :-)
> 
> I would like to see references to the SIP domain certificate specification, as it plays a role for implementors, as well as the SIP certificate management service. These should be important for anyone building SIMPLE implementations and adds some missing pieces in the SIMPLE specs.
> 
> - RFC 6072 Certificate Maangement Service for Session Initiation Protocol
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6072
> - RFC 5922 Domain Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5922
> 
> Maybe we could add a clarification for newbies that "The SIP subscribe/notify mechanism is not only used in SIMPLE, but also in other event packages outside of the scope of this document."
> 

My personal opinion is that general SIP mechanisms are out of scope for this draft. Otherwise, we could pull in most of the body of work of SIP. SIP-events is an exception, since it is core to all of the presence work. At most,we might considert a paragraph mentioning that many SIP related mechanisms can apply to SIMPLE just like any other SIP usage, perhaps with a ref to the hitchhiker's guide.

> 
> I could possibly also add a section about the missing interoperability in presence/XCAP implementations but that propably won't help this particular document that I find has a lot of value.

I agree that this wouldn't add value to this doc. Also, I think that's important enough of a concern to warrant its own draft :-)