Subject: [Simple] draft-blau-simple-msrp-acm

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:07:16 -0700

One tiny comment on the draft, I think it is worth mentioning there  
were reasons for MSRP relays beyond just the NAT traversal.

Cullen in my individual contributor role

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

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:22:04 +0100

Hi,

>were reasons for MSRP relays beyond just the NAT traversal.

I guess I will find those reasons documented in the MSRP relay spec, right?

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:22:26 -0600

> I guess I will find those reasons documented in the MSRP relay spec,  

I doubt you find it. I don't really think that our protocol  
specification should try and capture the full rational behind their  
design - it's just too much information that is often not relevant to  
interoperable implementations.

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:20:24 -0500

Ummm... that sounds contradictory.  Why would the MSRP Relay RFC *NOT* need to provide a full rationale for itself because its not relevant to interoperable implementations, yet at the same time the msrp-acm draft SHOULD document the rationales for MSRP Relay, when it's even *less* relevant to interoperable msrp-acm implementations why MSRP Relay was written.  (or am I misunderstanding your comment?)

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Cullen Jennings
>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:54:41 -0600

I'm lost but doubt any of this thread matters much. I was not  
suggesting that msrp-acm should explain why MSRP was written the way  
it was. Sorry if it was confusing.

On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:20 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

>
> Ummm... that sounds contradictory.  Why would the MSRP Relay RFC  
> *NOT* need to provide a full rationale for itself because its not  
> relevant to interoperable implementations, yet at the same time the  
> msrp-acm draft SHOULD document the rationales for MSRP Relay, when  
> it's even *less* relevant to interoperable msrp-acm implementations  
> why MSRP Relay was written.  (or am I misunderstanding your comment?)
>
> -hadriel
>