An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-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: 'An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol
   (MSRP)'
  (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-10.txt) as a 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-acm/

Ballot Text

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.
 
The document defines an alternative connection model for Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP) User Agents (UAs), which uses the
connection-oriended media (COMEDIA) mechanism in order to create the MSRP
transport connection.  The model allows MSRP UAs behind Network Address
Translators (NATs) to negotiate which UA will initiate the establishment
of the TCP connection, in order for MSRP messages to traverse the NAT.
 
 
          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
             For example, was there controversy about particular points
             or were there decisions where the consensus was
             particularly rough?
 
There was consensus in the working group to publish this document.
 
There were no controversy points about this document.
 
 
          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             Review, on what date was the request posted?
 
The document has received review by members of the SIMPLE working group,
and by other experts.
 
The document has been adopted by other standardization bodies.
 
 
          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
 
The document shepherd for this document is Hisham Khartabil.
 
The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.

RFC Editor Note