Subject: [Simple] (Very) late MSRP questions, version number in request?

From: Ignacio Más "Ivars (KI/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:52:31 -0800

Hi folks,

I have a question about MSRP that stroke me the last days while
implementing some MSRP code: SIP, HTTP and RTSP (for example) signal the
version in the header line (SIP/2.0, HTTP/1.1...) for different reasons
(compatibility and so...) Wouldn't it be a good idea to do the same with
MSRP, say 'MSRP/1.0 transactionID SEND'. I think it would ease upgrading
MSRP if need be in the future. Has it been discussed before? Does it
make sense?

Thanks!
/Ignacio

-- 
Ignacio Más Ivars
Service enablers and protocols, Ericsson Research (EAB/TBG/B)
Ericsson AB                     Phone: +46 8 4045580
Torshamsgatan 23                Fax:   +46 8 4049500
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden     mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:03:15 -0800

Ignacio Más Ivars (KI/EAB) wrote:

>MSRP, say 'MSRP/1.0 transactionID SEND'.
>

This comes up often enough that we might to add some motivating text in 
the document.

I'll quote Ben Campbell from a message dated 6/28/2004:

> This was discussed in the working group some time back. The consensus 
> was that there was no use for a version indicator, since MSRP would 
> never negotiate versions.
>
> Since MSRP is _always_ negotiated with an external signaling protocol, 
> any version negotiation belongs there. Any version updates to MSRP 
> must describe how to indicate the new version in the sdp exchange. 

/a

---

From: Ignacio Más "Ivars (KI/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:13:44 -0800

Hi,
inline:

> This comes up often enough that we might to add some motivating text in 

Yes, I agree. Perhaps just adding a a paragraph explaining the decision
would help.

> > must describe how to indicate the new version in the sdp exchange. 

O.K. sounds fair! It could be good as you suggest just adding exactly
*that* to the document...

Thanks!
/Ignacio

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:35:46 -0600

Hello Ignacio,

This topic has been extensively discussed in the past.

MSRP is never used without an encompassing signaling protocol. The base
doc puts requirements on such a signaling protocol, one of which is  
to have
sufficient feature negotiation capability to deal with future changes  
that are
not backward compatible:

       The rendezvous mechanism MUST provide mechanisms for the
       negotiation of any supported MSRP extensions that are not
       backwards compatible.

RjS