From nobody Wed Oct 8 19:18:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6E01A8A15 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:18:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lvXm7EalFjhb for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC461A8A13 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v63so765030oia.12 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jeFueFrzf/UEdLQ0aqjw9LB4s4oYCv0U992IEXV10PY=; b=ONCQkEdCC5EPeQKNswvKbs3+KO/nCDKHlca6UJ5bnrfWEeJ5PU10FB/5DH/XtFe3yO Etr8lZeQw1nKrfiOQxR53TCi7ukaHNTNV9NUbx6IBXnSfQLN23qbAVm7xrBNNAT/0220 0xl19LbQHaNVp3l9K4FNRPmO1+J0MJlWme+A01yFoS6irgHDKlmI8Gx4chilMB/9/DLu UZhu040iod2Pr3/zSBEJriwhi/q/zYQh9FF2du9JjlJZhGavKSgcv2cWztqQTnCo8byZ k5wGOmWOEOxvvDyUMj5C4wIHj+deprxdzYu4WmDNCsAx7dCgKJsOG5tAs9f0imjKIeVw DyvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnK3UKkBBd6whLnd1tJtYeKRgx/VkYAIEOsu+AKTSZDy5fobe+MkTfk8AxNjFZbLI4grnXz X-Received: by 10.60.65.8 with SMTP id t8mr18044628oes.47.1412821094181; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kp9sm1717490obb.2.2014.10.08.19.18.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5435F064.3060901@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:18:12 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell References: <20140611034449.8863.29452.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5397D10B.3060806@stpeter.im> <53A3B016.6060202@stpeter.im> <53F49F36.8090705@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <53F49F36.8090705@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/GMDOIH6iqMXOViMuZaOqrdX3Hko Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-05.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 02:18:17 -0000 On 8/20/14, 7:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/20/14, 2:31 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >> On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/19/14, 3:49 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> [Disclaimer: this was a higher level review than for the previous >>>> version--I mainly looked to see how the previous discussions about >>>> the architecture rendered into the draft. ] >>>> >>>> This version is much improved. I think you've gotten the "FAIL" off >>>> of it. But of course, cleaning up the architecture reveals a few >>>> things :-) >>>> >>>> Section 4: >>>> >>>> I think the addition of section 4 helps a lot in general. >>>> >>>> The architecture treats the MSRP Conference server to be a monolithic >>>> thing. >>> >>> As you pointed out later in this thread, this is a simplifying >>> assumption to make the diagrams and explanations easier to follow. >> >> Do you concur that that assumption should be pointed out? (Or did I >> miss some place where it is already?) > > Hi Ben, I've continued to think about this. I now conclude it would be > better to show the proper architecture: i.e., signalling traffic from > the XMPP side is sent to the conference focus, and groupchat media > traffic is sent to the MSRP switch. This is especially important because > in the XMPP world we don't consider groupchat messages to be "media". > Making this clear in the text, diagrams, and protocol flows will help > developers understand the differences. > > I'll work these concepts into the next version of the I-D, which I hope > to work on in the next week or two. Sorry about being so slow. When I look at draft-ietf-simple-chat, I see that the conference focus and the MSRP switch both have the same address, although the URIs differ because the focus has a SIP URI and the switch has an MSRP URI. The focus seems to inform the participant about the MSRP URI to contact using an SDP a= line specifying a "path" attribute, such as: a=path:msrp://chat.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp Is it allowable for the focus to have an address different from the switch? For example, could we have an architecture like this? #################################################################### # # # +------------------+ # # | msrp.example.org |%%%%%%%%%%%% # # &&&&| (MSRP switch) +-----+ % # # & +---------------| M2X | % # # & % | GW |... % # # & % +-----+ . +-----+ # # & % . | X2M | # # & % +-------| GW |--+ # # & % | +-----+ | # # +------------------+ % +-----+ +-------------------+ # # | chat.example.org |**********| X2S | | muc.example.com | # # | (conference | % | GW | | (MUC service) | # # | focus) +-----+ % +-----+ +-------------------+ # # +------------| S2X | % | example.com | # # * | GW |..............| (XMPP server) | # # * +-----+ % +----------------+ # # * % . # # * % . # # romeo@example.org juliet@example.com # # # #################################################################### Where: . = XMPP % = MSRP * = SIP & = app-specific I ask because having a separate address for the switch (effectively redirecting from the focus to the switch) might introduce challenges with authorization of entities on the XMPP side (e.g., a client or server might whitelist the focus address but that authorization decision wouldn't apply to the switch address). For now, while editing draft-ietf-stox-groupchat I will keep the focus and switch addresses the same. Peter -- Peter Saint-andre https://andyet.com/ -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Oct 9 22:15:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2568D1A01D5; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:15:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rXuM1kOHISLM; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25981A0197; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:15:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.3.p4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:15:23 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/08sN-ssW3ESBcaO_298yxVKkmiE Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:15:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group of the IETF. Title : Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Saul Ibarra Salvatore Loreto Filename : draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2014-10-09 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant messages in the context of a multiparty chat session among users of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat (MUC) extension. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Oct 10 05:55:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEC71ACD88 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIP5rRJMEGHb for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE6D1ACD83 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so2547855igd.4 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A67irFpg2dosxTVvU0ABFymUGC8ibTcLkvAI9uIc6eg=; b=i8jkYocsVxZGqaYdMmD58yufWX0Si9gCXMGtQzXmRt2aOrWY9Ww4f7HtmnEHaO/A5w a0k3t3zFDElhZNHw6L+AdXlqEaZtzdGXeVCxlGpEIf8rzzs+2vLmvEf/X5QXbKOkSjRv +vzUE6flkiYui9FkpYQuXZR0/lfZpn6fLSWMFrSjOMrUysQrCz0PLGq+6e78ZtQlE4hW o9Lx1Px2i60qXEMi7puymL999FuzoFg8Plo3qf+xZemVtRKmPq/uTAzdt2MyFxFevbST HVvAgdngA903OKmDgBOp7dPW2BjSzxicNcUsFFqhEF5EvoprJLhPZNpwKb6J+V3KZZTc zfsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQLU10t4kSrxpYxygsIH1SiChmDHd2iVSavwv2xG3khYLvFEPv3GnMMtQsWgXMQ0OyZyFH X-Received: by 10.43.138.134 with SMTP id is6mr2770087icc.96.1412945741457; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j4sm1786106igx.20.2014.10.10.05.55.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:55:39 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stox@ietf.org References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/ff9gvyCfa4PrY9yM2pqfLXmNdu4 Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:55:44 -0000 This was my attempt to address Ben Campbell's feedback on architecture, which necessitated changes to all the protocol flows and examples, too. Reviews would be appreciated. :-) Thanks! Peter On 10/9/14, 11:15 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat > Authors : Peter Saint-Andre > Saul Ibarra > Salvatore Loreto > Filename : draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt > Pages : 36 > Date : 2014-10-09 > > Abstract: > This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the > exchange of instant messages in the context of a multiparty chat > session among users of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and > users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). > Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based > Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat > (MUC) extension. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > stox mailing list > stox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox > -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Oct 15 13:58:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEEE1ACD46 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:58:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.011 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m1Vl06LrO1EI for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582071ACD45 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.99.53] (i19025.upc-i.chello.nl [62.195.19.25]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4258C16DC6B2; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:58:12 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DD85701-973D-474B-9F71-F21D44A7FF1F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= In-Reply-To: <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:57:58 +0200 Message-Id: <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/l-W49MobNcKpFnEDnjk6XjfRZmo Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:58:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1DD85701-973D-474B-9F71-F21D44A7FF1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 10 Oct 2014, at 14:55, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet = wrote: > This was my attempt to address Ben Campbell's feedback on = architecture, which necessitated changes to all the protocol flows and = examples, too. >=20 > Reviews would be appreciated. :-) >=20 Thanks for getting back to this! Some observations: In example 3,c an we ditch ";automata;message;event=3D=93conference=94=94?= The only thing that matters is =93is focus=94 and the rest might just = add confusion, specially the =93event=3D=91conference=92=94 part. We have been using =93SIP-to-XMPP=94 and =93XMPP-to-SIP=94 all along, = but now some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP=94 = thing appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in = the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP go = together, even if technically they can be different entities. To be = clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is =93XMPP-to-MSRP=94.= Section 5.8: typo: =93focsu=94. Example 27: add =93nickname private-messages=94 to a=3Dchatroom Example 28: I=92d say =93SIP-to-XMPP gateway acks session=94 Other that these minor issues it LGTM! Cheers, -- Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9 AG Projects --Apple-Mail=_1DD85701-973D-474B-9F71-F21D44A7FF1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUPt/gAAoJEN2cyH9ENwiqsEcP+wT9sVVqdSKtwCfELpxCGy0x sKo7mqn5RhPI8LGIqAGRk47MYoeYmrV74SKfhv16EQibNpnBNJvc73uc3wI+Zmi8 ZXYW0aa2xK1G6CHfkYuFxWwsbGlZ8SP2djum0uTn+CSH/jAjtfd50WJd8SlQy3wT 6/irgjBHtGRAZ+o1/U13/5uGKdU8fWHtjYZ7rj3B6HspM29LzzGEhV1vHJwVjJ9Z NhjPLR7weo0Ts/r+PENQdnHSuqFn3xRu1VtZtIci99mp++psP+LjZYR9PVlvNMDC 4BqtJ2uhIHzMRw4mlzdGkn1jFnwtVxplk8aDlzktT1MeDj8/qrtNi0I5uawoyRfj zJlnTyVuwNIESZBmwgK6f7CnduzQv5pSd/iLa3KgVdwMVn4jIInyakc8Vmeffru9 8LbrKUvLhU9fYeVnHI9U3NKoyO4zGKbCmceGZMYmRZYjTJpOyh1YLSuxe0N+Vhs/ 9Uk85K5svipv5/2J8Wvz9Lgh4SRzWk6odoivGYqXkNmuxz7EjTyCG6g1jNSyDo5H yhXbhMTOF5+uXPaHUspSAQGm3Q4ibhaCmHGad2gVL5OmrTxoZgd7PMPJ+TvpV6da BPFIEdkTPiC4ddkXFq1IZBMO5fd8aC4J8wW3J4KQ7bf5gG3zopHmOdIO52vnzMRf IcpeKg1nFm+O7BGVvfoG =liFq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1DD85701-973D-474B-9F71-F21D44A7FF1F-- From nobody Thu Oct 16 18:44:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45E51A86FC for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPNRA09ZPeIc for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69F61A1BB5 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hn15so2111520igb.3 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C9CndHmWgVeQXXYhXGqFZN2Iasb3o61XhTgLvTSQvlc=; b=Lmx7CTzGjqMVLtg5/Dwpgb29QiIgXPEKNsu0I3hBQiszVi6ehfXXSs3t8deYtUjDJg BXbCkpWMZ2lskK8HxS9DwKgAIYtXY4voqu4TYossbinzHOy6j7mbXRqqa8Yq9Qx/UAzT DFVvai41z7sCt9KmPewirv/f5lPLjP9gpB3Ze5LkWLFbbM5ge5HPqZWjmQ2200t0x4Ci XM9gsDA4smpVWil9AOhXCRueieXSysN17m3xTQkRmJn2n75MJrYLRP1qorvdhGdmpGEd w1WPUFPXo6UNyhxYe1ANrhfny10lsa7gM3Gpt7qe8WKWRSAb+PyzHX3gQ3EZ0ixTpZXR KB9w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkb0I6F//pzq9XuSa77AkhW6jSujapKhddd/J25fU/pfP9Uv7Q/TKgxz3K5fvvRERe1VovY X-Received: by 10.43.63.17 with SMTP id xc17mr7486583icb.50.1413510286016; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 140sm3981571ioe.38.2014.10.16.18.44.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5440748C.606@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:44:44 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> In-Reply-To: <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/0LJwWisfxtDt1NTNyWBjHjQuzoA Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:44:50 -0000 On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Sa�l Ibarra Corretg� wrote: > We have been using �SIP-to-XMPP� and �XMPP-to-SIP� all along, but now > some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP� thing > appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in > the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP > go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To > be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is > �XMPP-to-MSRP�. Hi Sa�l, thanks for the feedback! Section 4 currently has the following paragraph: These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code. I propose that we change it to: These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located in the same physical entity. For example, the SIP conference focus and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code. In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP translation, but would instead have a single gateway. I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch (as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart implementer could figure it out. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Oct 20 14:51:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B7B1ACF24 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhOAGl4NWsKq for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D850A1ACF19 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.99.53] (i19025.upc-i.chello.nl [62.195.19.25]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D14714AC00E; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:51:19 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B19B7C60-E590-40EE-8E4D-4E9E8C957FFC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= In-Reply-To: <5440748C.606@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:51:14 +0200 Message-Id: References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> <5440748C.606@andyet.net> To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/Zdws6sm91wJx1PNhkumCVQB2Ff0 Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:51:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B19B7C60-E590-40EE-8E4D-4E9E8C957FFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:44, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet = wrote: > On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9 wrote: >=20 >> We have been using =93SIP-to-XMPP=94 and =93XMPP-to-SIP=94 all along, = but now >> some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP=94 thing >> appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in >> the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP >> go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To >> be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is >> =93XMPP-to-MSRP=94. >=20 > Hi Sa=FAl, thanks for the feedback! >=20 > Section 4 currently has the following paragraph: >=20 > These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located > in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP > switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service > and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code. >=20 > I propose that we change it to: >=20 > These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located > in the same physical entity. For example, the SIP conference focus > and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC > service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed > code. In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have > separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP > translation, but would instead have a single gateway. >=20 > I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to = MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, = an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch = (as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a = separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the = MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would = already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear = description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and = protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as = we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The = modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart = implementer could figure it out. >=20 Agreed! LGTM. -- Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9 AG Projects --Apple-Mail=_B19B7C60-E590-40EE-8E4D-4E9E8C957FFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJURYPWAAoJEN2cyH9ENwiqJBIQAKkyK3h1CqUR9PCYhHbq0gRf cIbvpO15M1gxFgC02pqed/g/MdyaGMLJ8BlzVGL7THrvy/n7dxI8GSwghAiN8YZ7 jRAXTQd7/e9IO3kaVQGcuG2JVtuSVjYP6ZtxNihruPaTWpDvJeX0SarLkG+Emfuw iehxMkR3w5BvTnOIKsKn15aqKFDemN3r/9mb4v/AxOxEtIaH4X/XoYHBtOgcdLTL XKJF+bEZ5/ggHqLNV9hp5UhH/17pzpckIyyG+UtDjI03OI0MgdYPawQJjerqqNrq wjJ0SPXxxBdKj7u4fB5uVup754pDMbu8zhZXE+hRFbf+p1eAfRLRG607Vz+uN35X 2Hm/wzy6GnqRucmJQJgBH32LxS5ksq71lxQteaM0gmcAI4YDzaIb6SFpKG97X33l r8scAeyMOQ+S1V0GGUpLGQmTHg8fb1RWSE0xruR2EGpt084h+KNley1K2GEVzqFu gxu1CwAnjlrgg7O+OJzaF87oWcvA+TgRrbUJXdf2LjyNJnKziwAxblJYOpB0ErW+ 49/DOgj3v33OvzQkbvYxFKbzhvHR+dlLohWPcsNG8yjSkAfQYmVddVA3X5Sa++ng a2gxzSrsEhtyngiamoIm2wTBoEusaEaiQcMQigQ2qQg4DfYGNvWCgb6mLeJhjuKm Yx2eeAtcZ2QA3oGlfABq =vJxg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B19B7C60-E590-40EE-8E4D-4E9E8C957FFC-- From nobody Tue Oct 21 09:45:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0341A8A9F for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hhoUodFjG1iA for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A7A1A8A9D for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so1730151igc.0 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=io/SQJxhk37CBsulquGLNHTx8JQxJIRHhtELcK8Ll54=; b=UOssIEKN09ZjNQHbB46W7tSAur5MF630A0DfMzroaViG2jAFECbFYP5F3DegPWqz5f o1yJjubeChPvJjUbyzH/68S1r9SSHjiipSz8ojAMGmxDMFPqabsLtGm4R6dJkuI4Xoa1 xKp1YAwAa1qzbWDHShbznXilGPWpBbmL9s/VxRK8DNAbyqqbzzMdULttKH93k2q1IYDY AwdBQor/mvQVfMg82gAuLG5CUCYkCLjpYdvkvQP8rn3Oh9eQX00dZcqmn7VWUb9PPxWi 39eRL6bGVKcrr8TJXmTVmVT35J2OTdhREkhznw2ZKhiaxQxIsc5re8P7U2bWrFXN59TW avxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrF1k05NyB2zlFGbpTJhbHFcbeQv42y3KXh6vPHjtq0JhyAaoJaZY+IgDITRFZaihwPmPg X-Received: by 10.42.21.19 with SMTP id i19mr34777818icb.37.1413909913328; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm6281602ioe.44.2014.10.21.09.45.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54468D96.6030809@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:45:10 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> <5440748C.606@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/T8o2zpW4KANCVC0hm2ypCehYfJ8 Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:45:17 -0000 On 10/20/14, 3:51 PM, Sa�l Ibarra Corretg� wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:44, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Sa�l Ibarra Corretg� wrote: >> >>> We have been using �SIP-to-XMPP� and �XMPP-to-SIP� all along, but now >>> some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP� thing >>> appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in >>> the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP >>> go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To >>> be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is >>> �XMPP-to-MSRP�. >> >> Hi Sa�l, thanks for the feedback! >> >> Section 4 currently has the following paragraph: >> >> These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located >> in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP >> switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service >> and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code. >> >> I propose that we change it to: >> >> These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located >> in the same physical entity. For example, the SIP conference focus >> and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC >> service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed >> code. In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have >> separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP >> translation, but would instead have a single gateway. >> >> I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch (as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart implementer could figure it out. >> > > Agreed! LGTM. Great. I'll submit a revised I-D sometime soon. :-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Tue Oct 21 09:49:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B381A8AC8; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TtHu7-VWl8I9; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993A11A8ABF; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:49:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141021164938.26631.69204.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:49:38 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/5kQfRO7lBQWAjMdZEy_02QVyqhU Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-07.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:49:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group of the IETF. Title : Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Saul Ibarra Salvatore Loreto Filename : draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-07.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2014-10-21 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant messages in the context of a multiparty chat session among users of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat (MUC) extension. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/