Hello,
for me it is so clear that the newer version is far more better than the
old one since it will have a greater rfc number. Obvious! I cannot argue
against it.
Cheers,
Daniel
PS. Guys, before implementing SIP-related RFC N, where N is greater than
4000, wait until RFC N+3000 is published to see if there will be one
obsoleting it. If not, you may be safe investing time in it.
On 5/25/11 1:00 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi, for those interested in MSRP protocol (instant
message sessions
and file transfer for SIP) there are bad news:
Even if there are already clients and servers (MSRP relays o IM
conference servers) implementing the MSRP protocol (RFC 4975 and 4976)
the SIMPLE WG will publish a new draft [*] that breaks these RFC's
just to satisfy big vendors interested in deploying MSRP capable
SBC/ALG boxes (so instead of solving NAT issues with MSRP relays as
RFC 4976 states, they want it to be fixed in the router by doing ugly
ALG, or in a SBC). This is terrible because all the MSRP devices
should implement this new draft in order to interoperate (no backward
compatibility at all). The draft also breaks the security defined in
RFC 4975 (for example, TLS name based authentication cannot work
anymore).
For further information I recommend reading these two posts:
http://blog.tekelec.com/blog/bid/29816/More-on-MSRP-Session-Match-Extension
http://blog.tekelec.com/blog/bid/33138/MSRP-Session-Match-Backwards-Compati…
and also these very *hot* mail threads in the SIMPLE maillist:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg09227.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg09229.html
[*]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-11
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla --
http://www.asipto.com
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda --
http://twitter.com/miconda