An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, simple mailing list <email@example.com>, simple chair <firstname.lastname@example.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/
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.