Skip to main content

Relay Extensions for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-relays-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    simple mailing list <simple@ietf.org>, 
    simple chair <simple-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'The Message Session Relay Protocol' 
         to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following documents:

- 'The Message Session Relay Protocol '
   <draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-20.txt> as a Proposed Standard
- 'Relay Extensions for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP) '
   <draft-ietf-simple-msrp-relays-11.txt> as a Proposed Standard

These documents are products of the SIP for Instant Messaging and 
Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Jon Peterson and Cullen Jennings.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-20.txt

Ballot Text

Technical Summary
 
A series of related instant messages between two or more parties can be
viewed as part of a "message session", that is, a conversational exchange
of messages with a definite beginning and end. This is in contrast to
individual messages each sent independently. Messaging schemes that track
only individual messages can be described as "page-mode" messaging,
whereas messaging that is part of a "session" with a definite start and
end is called "session-mode" messaging.

This document describes the Message Session Relay Protocol, a protocol
for transmitting a series of related instant messages in the context of a
session.
 
Working Group Summary
 
This document reflects WG consensus. It defines the Message Session Relay
Protocol (MSRP). The working group has been working on this draft for
years and have arrived at this after several re-starts.
 
Protocol Quality
 
This document was reviewed for the IESG by Jon Peterson. Hisham Khartabil
was the PROTO shepherd for this document.

RFC Editor Note

On draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19.txt:

Section 7.2 paragraph 3

OLD

The endpoint then inserts an appropriate To-Path header field. If the  
request triggering the response was a SEND request, the To-Path  
header field is formed by copying the last (right-most) URI in the  
From-Path header field of the request. (Responses to SEND requests  
are returned only to the previous hop.) For responses to all other  
request methods, the To-Path header field contains the full path back  
to the original sender. This full path is generated by taking the  
list of URIs from the From-Path of the original request, reversing  
the list, and writing the reversed list into the To-Path of the  
response. (Legal REPORT requests do not request responses, so this  
specification doesn't exercise the behavior described above, however  
we expect that extensions for gateways and relays will need such  
behavior.)

NEW

The endpoint then inserts an appropriate To-Path header field. If the  
request triggering the response was a SEND request, the To-Path  
header field is formed by copying the first (left-most) URI in the  
From-Path header field of the request. (Responses to SEND requests  
are returned only to the previous hop.) For responses to all other  
request methods, the To-Path header field contains the full path back  
to the original sender. This full path is generated by copying the  
list of URIs from the From-Path of the original request into the To- 
Path of the response. (Legal REPORT requests do not request  
responses, so this specification doesn't exercise the behavior  
described above, however we expect that extensions for gateways and  
relays will need such behavior.)

Section 7.1.1 paragraph 7

OLD

If the value of "Failure-Report" is set to "yes", then the sender of  
the request runs a timer. If a 200 response to the transaction is not  
received within 30 seconds from the time the last byte of the  
transaction is sent, or submitted to the operating system for  
sending, the element MUST inform the user that the request probably  
failed. If the value is set to "partial", then the element sending  
the transaction does not have to run a timer, but MUST inform the  
user if it receives a non-recoverable error response to the transaction.

NEW

If the value of "Failure-Report" is set to "yes", then the sender of  
the request runs a timer. If a 200 response to the transaction is not  
received within 30 seconds from the time the last byte of the  
transaction is sent, or submitted to the operating system for  
sending, the element MUST inform the user that the request probably  
failed. If the value is set to "partial", then the element sending  
the transaction does not have to run a timer, but MUST inform the  
user if it receives a non-recoverable error response to the  
transaction. There is no requirement to wait for a response prior to  
sending the next request.

Section 7.2 Last Paragraph

OLD

Finally, the endpoint inserts a From-Path header field containing the  
URI that identifies it in the context of the session, followed by the  
end-line after the last header field. The response MUST be  
transmitted back on the same connection on which the original request  
arrived.

NEW

Finally, the endpoint inserts a From-Path header field containing the  
URI that identifies it in the context of the session, followed by the  
end-line after the last header field. Since a response is never  
chunked, the continuation flag in the end-line will always contain a  
dollar sign ("$"). The response MUST be transmitted back on the same  
connection on which the original request arrived.

RFC Editor Note