Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) 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: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, simple mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, simple chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)' (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-07.txt) as 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-cema/
Technical Summary RFC4976 describes how to use MSRP over special purpose MSRP relays, in order to traverse NATs and firewalls, and to allow network policy enforcement. However, many networks use other middleboxes for this purpose for other SIP-signaled media, and would like to use the same middleboxes for MSRP. This draft describes an extension to MSRP to make it easier for them to do so. Working Group Summary The goal of the draft that this one replaced (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch) was controversial in the SIMPLE work group. The authors of RFC4975 and 4976 initially objected to the modification of the protocol to make it more friendly to non-standardized middleboxes such as SBCs. However, those objections were generally secondary to security related objections that the older draft interfered with some TLS use cases. The working group has a consensus that the security issues do not apply to the current draft. In summary, draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-03 still extends the MSRP protocol to make it more friendly to middleboxes such as SBCs. The work group believes it does no incremental harm when compared with the case of using MSRP as defined in RFC4975 in the presence of such middleboxes--which would either result in communication failure, or the failure to anchor media at the middlebox. Document Quality Multiple participants have implemented or indicated an intent to implement it. Personnel The document shepherd for this document is Hisham Khartabil. The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.