From nobody Mon Mar 2 00:09:31 2015 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 2F5131A3BA5; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Tw9l5foo8otQ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F4F1A3BA7; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: DraftTracker Mail System To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302080922.30632.90401.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:09:22 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Last Call Expired: 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:09:24 -0000 Please DO NOT reply to this email. I-D: ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to Waiting for Writeup. From nobody Mon Mar 2 00:09:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 58FA51A3BA7; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5131A3BA5; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Tw9l5foo8otQ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F4F1A3BA7; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: DraftTracker Mail System To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302080922.30632.90401.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:09:22 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Last Call Expired: 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:09:24 -0000 Please DO NOT reply to this email. I-D: ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to Waiting for Writeup. From nobody Mon Mar 2 00:09:38 2015 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 30D6E1A6EF1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 GUKXkoo4vT9H; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E5B1A3BA6; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: DraftTracker Mail System To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302080923.30632.81542.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Last Call Expired: 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:09:25 -0000 Please DO NOT reply to this email. I-D: ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to Waiting for Writeup. From nobody Mon Mar 2 00:09:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 585F21A3BA6; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D6E1A6EF1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 GUKXkoo4vT9H; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E5B1A3BA6; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: DraftTracker Mail System To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302080923.30632.81542.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:09:23 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Last Call Expired: 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:09:25 -0000 Please DO NOT reply to this email. I-D: ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to Waiting for Writeup. From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:57:38 2015 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 EB0C91A8AD9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:35 -0800 (PST) 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 OszWG-_6U246; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914561A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:57:36 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4 -- stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of something from 6121. -- Section 8 -- Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:57:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2265E1A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0C91A8AD9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:35 -0800 (PST) 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 OszWG-_6U246; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914561A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:57:36 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4 -- stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of something from 6121. -- Section 8 -- Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:58:42 2015 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 3D2D91A8ACC; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:40 -0800 (PST) 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 HkWWNg0Cogdd; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88B01A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:58:40 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 1 -- In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". -- Section 6 -- Here the idle state indicates that the sender is not actively composing a message, and the active state indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a message (the sending client simply toggles between the two states, changing to active if the user is actively composing a message and changing to idle if the user is no longer actively composing a message). This really sounds repetitious (because the repeating sounds repetitious when it repeats). I think you could end the parenthetical after "toggles between the two states", because you've really already said the rest. -- Section 11 -- The second paragraph looks like it's exactly the same as what's added in stox-im, and that's a normative reference already. Why not add a citation to the security considerations in stox-im, and delete the second paragraph, incorporating it by reference? From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:58:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5E4981A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:40 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2D91A8ACC; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:40 -0800 (PST) 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 HkWWNg0Cogdd; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88B01A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:58:38 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:58:40 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 1 -- In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". -- Section 6 -- Here the idle state indicates that the sender is not actively composing a message, and the active state indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a message (the sending client simply toggles between the two states, changing to active if the user is actively composing a message and changing to idle if the user is no longer actively composing a message). This really sounds repetitious (because the repeating sounds repetitious when it repeats). I think you could end the parenthetical after "toggles between the two states", because you've really already said the rest. -- Section 11 -- The second paragraph looks like it's exactly the same as what's added in stox-im, and that's a normative reference already. Why not add a citation to the security considerations in stox-im, and delete the second paragraph, incorporating it by reference? From nobody Tue Mar 3 05:08:04 2015 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 18F8F1A6FF7; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:03 -0800 (PST) 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 Aiy_H1QRWyqs; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF171A07BE; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 13:08:03 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? I mean because nobody really does that afaik. If someone does do it (I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really uncommon, or some such. From nobody Tue Mar 3 05:08:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4339E1A6FFE; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F8F1A6FF7; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:03 -0800 (PST) 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 Aiy_H1QRWyqs; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF171A07BE; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 05:08:01 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 13:08:03 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? I mean because nobody really does that afaik. If someone does do it (I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really uncommon, or some such. From nobody Tue Mar 3 07:16:48 2015 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 8C33F1A877D; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:45 -0800 (PST) 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 Y7B19XZewHqW; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CA91A8774; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 15:16:45 -0000 Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a question for you to consider... Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. From nobody Tue Mar 3 07:16:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A8E271A878B; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C33F1A877D; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:45 -0800 (PST) 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 Y7B19XZewHqW; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CA91A8774; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 15:16:45 -0000 Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a question for you to consider... Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. From nobody Tue Mar 3 12:42:31 2015 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 465461A8939; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:30 -0800 (PST) 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 OJXL1Z-j3yRR; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E531A891F; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 20:42:30 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D, just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can find.) - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it might be better if you find some other wording. From nobody Tue Mar 3 12:42:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 65F261A893B; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465461A8939; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:30 -0800 (PST) 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 OJXL1Z-j3yRR; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E531A891F; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:42:28 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 03 Mar 2015 20:42:30 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D, just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can find.) - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it might be better if you find some other wording. From nobody Tue Mar 3 14:57:50 2015 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 778AD1A1B48; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:47 -0800 (PST) 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 J1P4A2l0A4r1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3D51A0277; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303225746.30325.18893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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, 03 Mar 2015 22:57:47 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ From nobody Tue Mar 3 14:57:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A01B41A1B6E; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778AD1A1B48; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:47 -0800 (PST) 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 J1P4A2l0A4r1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3D51A0277; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303225746.30325.18893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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, 03 Mar 2015 22:57:47 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ From nobody Tue Mar 3 14:57:56 2015 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 5FF541A1B6E; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) 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 clgDpP24GvmL; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9516A1A0277; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303225752.32019.73130.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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, 03 Mar 2015 22:57:54 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ From nobody Tue Mar 3 14:57:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 873F71A1BB5; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF541A1B6E; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) 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 clgDpP24GvmL; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9516A1A0277; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150303225752.32019.73130.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:57:52 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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, 03 Mar 2015 22:57:54 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 05:34:37 2015 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 A28DA1A1AC6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FzwBPJSVsoDk; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA171A1AB9; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so21237849lbv.8; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:34:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ib5DVGXIlHydqH6/UUe0x2sGVmrbr0dZdVZv8MP1yk0=; b=tAK3qeHpg+8rKpSm3PuX6jLllXLOp623e9EgioW80WMzqroiYgXnkUumfJbSCVT4Kh LGeFPrTkuFKBCx9DTZZW2RlwLRv2oltwVVKGanZVkCn9++GlFxFQRdiN4JHnT3NI/fZd N4ro2vtekkhm3/cD6aOAf5jea/dWHLwAsCqcgDjvxpo5cMOpEUOUhrsNEaKyyJmALwIE Wn4ZLQpk1PXy12mrwQTXkvZQkQJj7LZDaJqDXpN4rsmkZOPovuPQ3M0MA9cLRXPyroK0 NDQnjyXi64oYKLlpqAg0Qh9xMXnP6Aq1SIHubUAip488USjLvpsP3IGrMXyAarTavQ2b je/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr3203768lbb.119.1425476067998; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:34:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:34:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3VuPsGbzOHqdhlmNLBhiphDnEEA Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 13:34:33 -0000 > - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it > might be better if you find some other wording. Why odd? This doesn't affect interoperability, but somewhat affects user experience. If I were implementing this, I would follow the suggestion. If it turned out to be too hard, in my implementation, to do that, I'd do something else. "We suggest these" seems exactly right here. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 05:34:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C315A1A1AD0; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28DA1A1AC6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FzwBPJSVsoDk; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA171A1AB9; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so21237849lbv.8; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:34:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ib5DVGXIlHydqH6/UUe0x2sGVmrbr0dZdVZv8MP1yk0=; b=tAK3qeHpg+8rKpSm3PuX6jLllXLOp623e9EgioW80WMzqroiYgXnkUumfJbSCVT4Kh LGeFPrTkuFKBCx9DTZZW2RlwLRv2oltwVVKGanZVkCn9++GlFxFQRdiN4JHnT3NI/fZd N4ro2vtekkhm3/cD6aOAf5jea/dWHLwAsCqcgDjvxpo5cMOpEUOUhrsNEaKyyJmALwIE Wn4ZLQpk1PXy12mrwQTXkvZQkQJj7LZDaJqDXpN4rsmkZOPovuPQ3M0MA9cLRXPyroK0 NDQnjyXi64oYKLlpqAg0Qh9xMXnP6Aq1SIHubUAip488USjLvpsP3IGrMXyAarTavQ2b je/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr3203768lbb.119.1425476067998; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:34:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:34:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:34:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3VuPsGbzOHqdhlmNLBhiphDnEEA Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 13:34:33 -0000 > - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it > might be better if you find some other wording. Why odd? This doesn't affect interoperability, but somewhat affects user experience. If I were implementing this, I would follow the suggestion. If it turned out to be too hard, in my implementation, to do that, I'd do something else. "We suggest these" seems exactly right here. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 06:35:18 2015 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 92D2A1A1B07; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:35:17 -0800 (PST) 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 wVGMRJxLetiK; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B8B1A1B0E; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:35:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150304143507.28236.10540.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:35:07 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00.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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:35:17 -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): Presence Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2015-03-03 Abstract: This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of presence information between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). This document obsoletes RFC 7248. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00 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 Wed Mar 4 06:50:41 2015 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 B6D0E1A19FA for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:50:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 YLEbdSqWA9fG for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from nok-msg-3.service.capgemini.fi (nok-msg-3.service.capgemini.fi [145.247.12.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796D21A00F7 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:50:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO NOKWDCFIEXCH01P.nnok.nokia.com) ([10.50.38.49]) by noi-msg-3.service.capgemini.fi with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2015 16:50:32 +0200 Received: from NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com (10.50.38.50) by NOKWDCFIEXCH01P.nnok.nokia.com (10.50.38.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:50:31 +0200 Received: from NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com ([fe80::99d1:400a:d939:3ebe]) by NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com ([fe80::99d1:400a:d939:3ebe%17]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.028; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:50:31 +0200 From: "Isomaki Markus (Nokia-TECH/Espoo)" To: "stox@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00 Thread-Index: AdBWiN7TU8vYgt2eS3WNoAYU9jf8uA== Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, fi-FI Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.50.32.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] WGLC on draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00 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, 04 Mar 2015 14:50:36 -0000 Hi, In the absence of objections or comments to [1], we are starting a one week= long Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-stox-7248-bis-00 (http://tools.= ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00). The WGLC will end on March 11. T= he main point of the reviews would be to check that 7248bis fixes the issue= s in RFC 7248 call flows while leaving everything else intact.=20 [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox/current/msg00622.html=20 Regards, STOX chairs=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: stox [mailto:stox-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 4. maaliskuuta 2015 16:35 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: stox@ietf.org > Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Interworking between the Session Initiation Pro= tocol (SIP) and > the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Presence > Author : Peter Saint-Andre > Filename : draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00.txt > Pages : 27 > Date : 2015-03-03 >=20 > Abstract: > This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the > exchange of presence information between the Session Initiation > Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol > (XMPP). This document obsoletes RFC 7248. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-00 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > stox mailing list > stox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox From nobody Wed Mar 4 07:13:02 2015 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 1AB4E1A6F05; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 XyFZ47dhVjVt; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6FD1A6F01; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17859BEBE; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:54 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8NJBMyPvYsTI; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.28.14.119] (unknown [193.242.192.25]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66E75BEB6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:18 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F720BE.5090609@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:11:58 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 15:12:59 -0000 On 04/03/15 13:34, Barry Leiba wrote: >> - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it >> might be better if you find some other wording. > > Why odd? This doesn't affect interoperability, but somewhat affects > user experience. If I were implementing this, I would follow the > suggestion. If it turned out to be too hard, in my implementation, to > do that, I'd do something else. "We suggest these" seems exactly > right here. I've lost context, but iirc it says "here's a thing, we suggest you do it, or maybe not" and gives no further guidance. If so, that reads oddly but I'd have to go check and can't juts now. It's fine to skip if I'm wrong. S > > Barry > From nobody Wed Mar 4 07:13:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4416F1A6F01; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:59 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB4E1A6F05; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 XyFZ47dhVjVt; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6FD1A6F01; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17859BEBE; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:54 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8NJBMyPvYsTI; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.28.14.119] (unknown [193.242.192.25]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66E75BEB6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:12:18 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F720BE.5090609@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:11:58 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 15:12:59 -0000 On 04/03/15 13:34, Barry Leiba wrote: >> - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it >> might be better if you find some other wording. > > Why odd? This doesn't affect interoperability, but somewhat affects > user experience. If I were implementing this, I would follow the > suggestion. If it turned out to be too hard, in my implementation, to > do that, I'd do something else. "We suggest these" seems exactly > right here. I've lost context, but iirc it says "here's a thing, we suggest you do it, or maybe not" and gives no further guidance. If so, that reads oddly but I'd have to go check and can't juts now. It's fine to skip if I'm wrong. S > > Barry > From nobody Wed Mar 4 09:36:54 2015 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 50C701A9125; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:51 -0800 (PST) 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 NwTUidahgWIk; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CCA1A8AF8; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Pete Resnick" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:36:51 -0000 Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in section 6, seems useful. From nobody Wed Mar 4 09:36:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7495B1A912B; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C701A9125; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:51 -0800 (PST) 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 NwTUidahgWIk; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CCA1A8AF8; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Pete Resnick" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:36:51 -0000 Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in section 6, seems useful. From nobody Wed Mar 4 12:13:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 752011ACE43; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544221ACC80 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:46 -0800 (PST) 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 7g2pbo5_ynXH for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA36A1AC444 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so2505829iec.7 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) 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=Mqq/OtVeMIvOe/Un4pnrmMKMwkak+OcbcLf8KbdluUY=; b=C5cNyYSaxwSEfVHYBg0OYgRX1oE2Hv+9N+DLNflrIz1WBkle83b896xq6xQsW8+7Kq yMTn4cRVL1ypFZQPxQ9UD+NSpf0WR+n9HPfYMAG7MOIHoiDlLzOXUJ4wmyxsMd7XDeqs w8FXyRwniD/UWPSm1JoHZtYnB9/v7TKWrO43aEi0M+etVkLYp2vL/V4UuBirSSUb4nlx /4wlWD6uQgkHsNH6dBI9Mjpku1Af2KLddB7GXN3puAqIMjpCw0Flo9SybENYYn30pMK1 upfHM3YiPPTV4g3MRxQFbQWIcxm83DrRBynAr90ZNX8scTau57ax5fUcJfkOcQj3P6Cg esFg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQns4lk3KGtVIHL871xm1yqR4aaC8P/ypEgewtbjWav4p0OMdmwFRxPv+s81oPtF2Pg0m4MV X-Received: by 10.107.148.197 with SMTP id w188mr14793271iod.73.1425500024390; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k191sm3493262ioe.21.2015.03.04.12.13.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:13:44 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 20:13:46 -0000 On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Section 4 -- > > stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is > defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the > 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form > "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). > > I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should > probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of > something from 6121. Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat session to the bare JID of the contact > -- Section 8 -- > Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section > say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does > not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language > tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? I think it's an oversight. > My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say > that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text. Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 12:13:56 2015 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 248C21ACE47 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:48 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 0F1-FTvMAaIZ for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01FC01ACE44 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so2512883iec.10 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) 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=Mqq/OtVeMIvOe/Un4pnrmMKMwkak+OcbcLf8KbdluUY=; b=CoQ1XIcbasb1i84It+DFIcF33o19fDYEk7ayUFV4y9bJA72l3KxTaiClMRnFNvZlf+ PHUoos66KSyfoWArCMVZRo/AjXWCxE9XB53Y7GJti+IYhwQw7VOgP1GdhKjNweA8IxwE kmMXkf4krJRHu7qFuvjZo5EF3dRv+DegbH8inerRlYHo7k+89Nt9TX3nONkqqKkS8sxY D0Ii90wLzeYQsYq6yk6/1ng0b3h1mVRJjT78PTr1M+OosXYszr2cHzT3YLcw4I9O28AI 6h6R1x+gqMFDB78xBBBQrCYdv1O+cMTH56aOyYrkxcRNaU6uFF/yYeiR4mYgpMLo85Ns qH3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmltK9p+hzCg2eZMojNgWt+TM53Jt5TpCFIFWfzEAixFEJyGiePuyv8al4e7p5hrheq87A5 X-Received: by 10.107.148.197 with SMTP id w188mr14793271iod.73.1425500024390; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k191sm3493262ioe.21.2015.03.04.12.13.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:13:44 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 20:13:48 -0000 On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Section 4 -- > > stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is > defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the > 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form > "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). > > I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should > probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of > something from 6121. Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat session to the bare JID of the contact > -- Section 8 -- > Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section > say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does > not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language > tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? I think it's an oversight. > My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say > that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text. Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:18:08 2015 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 4D7B31A005C for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:03 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 Lkq5SG2gYCe1 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D9581A0054 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so71680847iec.8 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) 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=Ts4bV9rmucP+BRUr/Ja+sPCy5gjtDcti0ZL15Kr8blo=; b=MWuf/ZIgcerVFQJ1SwLZpJQOPxH17JTw5LUbtEDDHAT/f8gqQgNlSnghPHfJ4ElOjE aweERX/pbrbOj6fQuOmnRoqb7popDmn2hlVp5z9wjZzIeeZ0you9+zId2AwHKN+Qv1xJ nhOoDcnTNB26BOlIlUBMPMpb9+xdXenWf5oteWtwChlOLVCsmGSgcxXvJVOPQHL72ve6 8wmV4IVt8Bi/jYrEbqz6rE/rOE9h44hg6ZQeAp6D5hVX2Prxk4VKI1tXpZuopmFVy22w QZcHLRilYEJP6j3Yva+/PAc810X7yPWQwCI2ENWjPu7sNIKnyp5q+D3LNIVV44U3qytv SSyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksm7LnLAdyRJ9nclhHGjj1kWLtvzs3GE3EV8gUcF1kFg1xf1303XBw/e2KnzodzLa8QbDt X-Received: by 10.50.136.228 with SMTP id qd4mr43249298igb.13.1425511080884; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm3777203ioe.31.2015.03.04.15.17.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:17:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:17:58 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:18:03 -0000 On 3/4/15 1:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- Section 4 -- >> >> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >> >> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >> something from 6121. > > Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: > > The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat > session to the bare JID of the contact > >> -- Section 8 -- >> Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section >> say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does >> not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language >> tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? > > I think it's an oversight. > >> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. > > That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text. How about this: Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:18:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A70971A0055; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A1E1A0053 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:04 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 LWg_XA8lttkE for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 704BB1A0055 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by ierx19 with SMTP id x19so71860347ier.3 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST) 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=Ts4bV9rmucP+BRUr/Ja+sPCy5gjtDcti0ZL15Kr8blo=; b=CVJUZVtv0uWUUxT9lhWLcPvHhhdkdZdKibcCr8Y+ZvC81l//cNVO9G2L8xPQcSiCNE mpMY72CrKV6LLUJDdCXV/9m9POALD2KKevpT9AiCym8tAvNgL8Y+X93YV9jZBMCVD+us sI7yl1/mRW1hl7ACZAf/fQ3/X1raFLbjKMcKRLOW8QB9ztiqvB4a5wNLfRSsQqh+6/N2 hT11rL2hLmwxpoz7pDpyJ6stC9cYYdLs6JxpqWz+cuAX1+cyn9g+domnGxmdbHw33Q5y ezobQ2/rEPQfbMYU70M/OgRWzIERhNC6EknySknR2/KHMufYhkQ3UML0ElSZ49DikPGH dXyw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBtSpvG9svDIBqGNxTlfkg8iXHKxDLjg3DOpstZ1UL1x9Rr1BuNvumCwLGFkpJy0QAbwOq X-Received: by 10.50.136.228 with SMTP id qd4mr43249298igb.13.1425511080884; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm3777203ioe.31.2015.03.04.15.17.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:17:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:17:58 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:18:04 -0000 On 3/4/15 1:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- Section 4 -- >> >> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >> >> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >> something from 6121. > > Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: > > The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat > session to the bare JID of the contact > >> -- Section 8 -- >> Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section >> say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does >> not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language >> tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? > > I think it's an oversight. > >> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. > > That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text. How about this: Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:22:01 2015 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 C01CE1A005A for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:22:00 -0800 (PST) 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 G4XZLzt0aFe5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E54F1A0033 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so71782552iec.11 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) 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=L2aw2BGLUjFi6f7qLRXvTdEJSdZUcvp69VK5hQdaiP4=; b=HjRu2QBUqn4cUlk+52dbgpeHy90ozS7pn6XewM5av7A0B5UlhGAAsNTFIdduunszcH 64I0VVH1/r7qh/5c4CXi2uhI/PgXeCrSeaHjAtOqkoxDmLVnQXLBtqEgFyPFbYUoWhA+ xBbaeoJNl9M3k5qNmsrj5kqYHAc4VmzrAjNhLwm9rz5SwQ0C3l0F11DLgNTOwvGw+q+9 169kf8T0PQkGexDV9PfpCjaautyJQ+o/zqkwr1yyUdzVNYKf1RKsEZ3U4n5cLesZWjhL wrXqAO2PA4kmLV3GDMks5PqJkXRiGjgbAa52pmpsJFb8xliUuv7OPls7KGA1aYcJzojJ HIhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLsteRANjtdHaKZ2WjnBhgqp+ynF+iQWG0vYPXKpNb8gyyVTLpt1qiYRtu3/0nsq4O36+w X-Received: by 10.50.143.106 with SMTP id sd10mr15968186igb.17.1425511318864; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d1sm11628232igl.9.2015.03.04.15.21.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:21:57 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:22:00 -0000 On 3/3/15 6:08 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) ? > - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? No, it's not. > I mean > because nobody really does that afaik. I am not aware of any implementations. > If someone does do it > (I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then > maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really > uncommon, or some such. It's much more likely that someone could use OTR: https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:22:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DF42E1A0055; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:22:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAC31A0058 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:22:00 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 foaMJHNbtiO3 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 750C01A0055 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by igqa13 with SMTP id a13so41185260igq.0 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) 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=L2aw2BGLUjFi6f7qLRXvTdEJSdZUcvp69VK5hQdaiP4=; b=i8jHv5I7j5upjad9sBtc+htpq22X9TBhIGMwtY9ArcTth9tEMqMEC1YUbZZSXunPXo v0nqX8yOX3OF/03cPN3WUwfIR6pJ7GjvTiAgkzo0Tz3+MAXsen+5wc/CiRfQ7Wcr+Fpn 6STZa0R3k0e0BHDsVEasDtHGhrJJQ3gNkNiTcbJ2HF4ibixt0GPsuwRAQjwP1Ogb5ECd pm0JTKTdMf8l0fam2aJ8CBLEdEe6qIUGQcx0zwFogIvxwfGUAHWRi1P5DwZH9qRrblCR z3qB78+kgP6Tkq0Rl6Ld6Lblrpoeb3Wy/d+v/8T5BzcsMMAJaJ1yJytFgvG+vQN9IrKA whEw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIHKVJRsunM/PpYYgHjJIGvs4fGwhnYMeO+/nQ0+6sTwazoHCMOtKOvYwylChYC6TjuHkX X-Received: by 10.50.143.106 with SMTP id sd10mr15968186igb.17.1425511318864; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d1sm11628232igl.9.2015.03.04.15.21.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:21:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:21:57 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:22:01 -0000 On 3/3/15 6:08 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) ? > - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? No, it's not. > I mean > because nobody really does that afaik. I am not aware of any implementations. > If someone does do it > (I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then > maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really > uncommon, or some such. It's much more likely that someone could use OTR: https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:29:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 01E651A0064; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58EF1A0069 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:30 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 VBxS4IctAQsm for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 428961A0064 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by igdh15 with SMTP id h15so41337160igd.3 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) 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=UzWPhUHc3ZY8XRykDcVZso4hLwkVoepWji6XLJ0fguw=; b=LWGQ1DBdLhh98jtE/a7wjjlDXHwV19+yK6MQmiuQde9+1sq2AcRWHjKsiw+xUCbCna DYapVcRBoDUONAHh3LijmBFNtfiw5HSKR0hZZl+GIfw7AnWg5ch74QAJSYMfT8oW1oVU v+DQ0+o4NNhysdmp0z180oIuUhFjFz9jdsYUCX4nfI72/DP2087pezj/PH1BS4ZjvRaU sYEY9uzUjR8vMPhBZXgFHzR4IPNRzi+rPn7/fqhvyxf4Us255oWk05IPagpEOA3zl85t +u/zmxB3d/2JG/VZc5GWCb7MRQFPwqBC/IQxaf9YB4LfE8a0kunH7xXCr1M50nPxPGaF 7/KQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlJjJWaXy1D2ZgSQdWYnpsI0RKCUUr0HzaszO5WzyR61WWuHnyy3Dq5xsK4d1I5PLwfop/t X-Received: by 10.42.76.6 with SMTP id c6mr312619ick.52.1425511768709; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm11632375ign.12.2015.03.04.15.29.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:29:26 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:29:31 -0000 On 3/2/15 4:58 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Section 1 -- > > In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally > negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. > > Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". Or something. :-) I'd prefer this: In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using SIP). > -- Section 6 -- > > Here the idle state indicates that the > sender is not actively composing a message, and the active state > indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a message (the > sending client simply toggles between the two states, changing to > active if the user is actively composing a message and changing to > idle if the user is no longer actively composing a message). > > This really sounds repetitious (because the repeating sounds repetitious > when it repeats). I think you could end the parenthetical after "toggles > between the two states", because you've really already said the rest. Agreed. > -- Section 11 -- > The second paragraph looks like it's exactly the same as what's added in > stox-im, and that's a normative reference already. Why not add a > citation to the security considerations in stox-im, and delete the second > paragraph, incorporating it by reference? Makes sense. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:29:35 2015 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 E22591A005C for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:31 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 Cc9yIeRk2XZj for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 429A41A0067 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by igkb16 with SMTP id b16so41354506igk.1 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) 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=UzWPhUHc3ZY8XRykDcVZso4hLwkVoepWji6XLJ0fguw=; b=jw1mO7WwZ22YPHBWoqhWQuabYKPsGBtFaIOS50Z8NNE/iSXOzHrA3lnfoqgW/ZPjVq rNV7aqVIqvFY/yXK5rBwHWWwVkyNsPU1otaWUWUeeoJ7BGoYNwscZFnO+gc/IwxRg/kU kZXp6r3hALhq812ka6d4WScw41PtrSXYWdI2WAxMIfcYP9TZeAXQ/aryBl+OWSkCsmwv WM+j/xXtv6A/MAsE4KTdJTomRXU7VSTVgTss4YB9hJAewl0D2WMedLXhtBvw2PrKairm pPjefZp7TlWykiV6LJqUQhldsmq4Nrs1/fibes1yDBsq2Ci1Ncn8OioOb+z/8188HDU6 qFwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTVSw8eX7XjtJQnWOb/uK7OiOzgz9qA7mtgBb6Mr3d1WdLxfpjboD+ED4DypVv/UU3XQDo X-Received: by 10.42.76.6 with SMTP id c6mr312619ick.52.1425511768709; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm11632375ign.12.2015.03.04.15.29.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:29:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:29:26 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:29:32 -0000 On 3/2/15 4:58 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Section 1 -- > > In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally > negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. > > Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". Or something. :-) I'd prefer this: In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using SIP). > -- Section 6 -- > > Here the idle state indicates that the > sender is not actively composing a message, and the active state > indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a message (the > sending client simply toggles between the two states, changing to > active if the user is actively composing a message and changing to > idle if the user is no longer actively composing a message). > > This really sounds repetitious (because the repeating sounds repetitious > when it repeats). I think you could end the parenthetical after "toggles > between the two states", because you've really already said the rest. Agreed. > -- Section 11 -- > The second paragraph looks like it's exactly the same as what's added in > stox-im, and that's a normative reference already. Why not add a > citation to the security considerations in stox-im, and delete the second > paragraph, incorporating it by reference? Makes sense. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:34:56 2015 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 0F30E1A006F; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sqDrYz1Gecbi; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 291EE1A0062; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so21864670lbi.13; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=djugvcqTxs6hoX0Bqv0QZbenAO3p7CqA5E0311oKC2g=; b=i7nhy/gHbQJGqC2C1VM4l5mLXTDONIjuOji67RBIbUdIuwOAmOiQ/N9vwE0+nhalzX zu/AOvHT91xQDceLme2lD+nIx0jkKAosI/541JApI3N13L2Ty+ZXsreEG6o8OZlboZUL OrqoeqatfLEz4ANJ7qot/FjXFOnmYUc9OFVbESu+eZNSvvp3kELL3dydJSwO3sWJqHKk YokJneR0kR3Yi2ea3/kM+my2nxJ4Qy+abwV02FhJy/iHeXXbE0Ilh+S9ZmAKl8zllwwy QzhCGCrk1vkzP2ngpnufqH6G+mZwmD4kFNidzDDtlHOXoguHIczn9aVSPI7dPIlXTM1I J+eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.194 with SMTP id u2mr5560114lau.88.1425512088656; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:34:48 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1m9sQV331xe-JpMBskBcg8yF3Z8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:34:52 -0000 >> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) > > ? I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He knows that. He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it is, once one gets to the group chats. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:34:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2ACFF1A0087; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F30E1A006F; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sqDrYz1Gecbi; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 291EE1A0062; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so21864670lbi.13; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=djugvcqTxs6hoX0Bqv0QZbenAO3p7CqA5E0311oKC2g=; b=i7nhy/gHbQJGqC2C1VM4l5mLXTDONIjuOji67RBIbUdIuwOAmOiQ/N9vwE0+nhalzX zu/AOvHT91xQDceLme2lD+nIx0jkKAosI/541JApI3N13L2Ty+ZXsreEG6o8OZlboZUL OrqoeqatfLEz4ANJ7qot/FjXFOnmYUc9OFVbESu+eZNSvvp3kELL3dydJSwO3sWJqHKk YokJneR0kR3Yi2ea3/kM+my2nxJ4Qy+abwV02FhJy/iHeXXbE0Ilh+S9ZmAKl8zllwwy QzhCGCrk1vkzP2ngpnufqH6G+mZwmD4kFNidzDDtlHOXoguHIczn9aVSPI7dPIlXTM1I J+eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.194 with SMTP id u2mr5560114lau.88.1425512088656; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:34:48 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1m9sQV331xe-JpMBskBcg8yF3Z8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:34:52 -0000 >> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) > > ? I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He knows that. He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it is, once one gets to the group chats. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:39:26 2015 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 074D51A00C3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 e7Y4tMbwryVd; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDFB01A009B; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so21881766lbi.13; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+WjDV7C8ybI+cYYGDpWXMtVEc1+e1b49+U7gqBJEago=; b=C+Sg0x6G6AIVb/EfUkaw2xU7Mt24HP+PqFcAziBV9sDNEsubFptWGUAEM/X3lNX5ov 8vTne3MKvTeDJWpYkusAGtmTePVR+chNtZ1kXCIq8dv6p9IDEAaCZpqdGsttDoNtyukR WICy2x66ItiJ8B4ennHn+Xe0dZtxDQ233MIe27ie8MeO23xmF9+gyuV49Pyf8cZ6/rfh u5L7EVrLWH6sWR3/+BdVEfYYh1hdTLkgOdwQDNNfFMTYgK69Qung6VWlAGa7htcpyeYX soyxWhPBJlftOyCyHn+pF6lJHFs4+o4648AM+975+SrDLzMuyk1SA+wvQpOxh6Y/078+ AfTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr5295305lbb.119.1425512362302; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:39:22 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zvQkngl0S-AGmXcoVEVqKMD51-4 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:39:25 -0000 >>> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >>> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >>> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >>> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >>> >>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >>> something from 6121. >> >> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: >> >> The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat >> session to the bare JID of the contact Ah, OK. Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be clearer to me (though maybe this is just me). With the long clause there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121". Anyway, minor thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think right. >>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. ... > How about this: > > Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode > characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the > language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' > attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST > map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the > original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" > [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks. Thanks. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:39:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 31D361A009B; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074D51A00C3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 e7Y4tMbwryVd; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDFB01A009B; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so21881766lbi.13; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+WjDV7C8ybI+cYYGDpWXMtVEc1+e1b49+U7gqBJEago=; b=C+Sg0x6G6AIVb/EfUkaw2xU7Mt24HP+PqFcAziBV9sDNEsubFptWGUAEM/X3lNX5ov 8vTne3MKvTeDJWpYkusAGtmTePVR+chNtZ1kXCIq8dv6p9IDEAaCZpqdGsttDoNtyukR WICy2x66ItiJ8B4ennHn+Xe0dZtxDQ233MIe27ie8MeO23xmF9+gyuV49Pyf8cZ6/rfh u5L7EVrLWH6sWR3/+BdVEfYYh1hdTLkgOdwQDNNfFMTYgK69Qung6VWlAGa7htcpyeYX soyxWhPBJlftOyCyHn+pF6lJHFs4+o4648AM+975+SrDLzMuyk1SA+wvQpOxh6Y/078+ AfTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr5295305lbb.119.1425512362302; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:39:22 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zvQkngl0S-AGmXcoVEVqKMD51-4 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:39:25 -0000 >>> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >>> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >>> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >>> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >>> >>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >>> something from 6121. >> >> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: >> >> The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat >> session to the bare JID of the contact Ah, OK. Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be clearer to me (though maybe this is just me). With the long clause there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121". Anyway, minor thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think right. >>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. ... > How about this: > > Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode > characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the > language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' > attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST > map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the > original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" > [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks. Thanks. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:40:46 2015 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 7E4A61A009B for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:43 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 U6MXxsiw-fUU for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A821F1A0076 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so4055614iec.10 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) 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=z4Zl6vgkYekxHmCZPHMdvws3Vd28i9cmE82IlT0+IFM=; b=EgvVn1ajvwrjoFJzPWymwmGRv8vIevua5XYEVB/XfkDOF3sTuCiqSRjJqdK651nueI 2ancKuFl9Y3CXCiA7Gi0LXTyLBjMeXZF+9FPHPeviuLcCVccvpa98G0eoWIg+eKSjTTS VeUCgFn9rfi8cO2fJyxk0hzU1gdgZ7qWQh9f2t1fKPJVvMak6olHJ0EHcMNJtJ3NPGo6 WYwjvLDok0lOuO1cC1jzFkFiKPKgpGvKMOZ8SL1LzDBBshqd3PA5ATNQmdaS/SkswpfG VXUQ6mxXGddzCWNkQcHAllmhR3YCJnJBTssSZLYNvIeAV7QZODBJp3hQAtjsro8X750Y Babg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4c2+wj1YFqG/jkVyAsPVhUMKmWLjabyJPgbmoQJyfHiGbmKgO/waP/JkoR4mwG14xPFga X-Received: by 10.50.111.115 with SMTP id ih19mr15984132igb.47.1425512440085; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c8sm3847721igx.9.2015.03.04.15.40.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:40:38 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:40:43 -0000 On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a > question for you to consider... > > Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of > a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest > possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for > protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following for MSRP-related timers: If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take action if a success report is not received in this time. There is no universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD inform the user. In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State Notifications) states the following about the state: User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). The relevant contrast here is with the state: User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:40:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BD1AA1A00CC; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECFC1A00C8 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:43 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 qfpwnJdHi68D for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F961A00C7 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so71936570iec.0 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) 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=z4Zl6vgkYekxHmCZPHMdvws3Vd28i9cmE82IlT0+IFM=; b=PaPZ6OE1AknZeCrjcOJTIc6ortycEZOrG6OhLpHe/Q7JBQo4mzncHJhGchu4IJAl0r 5lsM1H004Rb333yPHjnQqoa8FrZgqRPJVpygm/hKq+oo8URpdgDKgpUAy5FUhpmCh3Yd gYtq305SD2wFZEatS6oL9zHdR7T8O9ecyAxynD6T35p3QF+yh3yz9I9kEqD/lsf1cwmn S2zwP3n/wxmn9JUZdQsowU2+6Ep8l0omzAc8dbdx0oiIPMud4bhfrko64yc++PEXNA5L 4MEqVo5Yf5XuY9T0GR+pRjAjrfbMq8LyGjVjBysR+Ufw1LpF+3kwC5gtlf80oi/pmEWn ZrLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIFpCl9fsQWec/ZHxStrpvvM+TO8n60DUtLyxkm/8aVeVVyxa04IQgk6dyu7OrEQLOW6sM X-Received: by 10.50.111.115 with SMTP id ih19mr15984132igb.47.1425512440085; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c8sm3847721igx.9.2015.03.04.15.40.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:40:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:40:38 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:40:43 -0000 On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a > question for you to consider... > > Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of > a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest > possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for > protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following for MSRP-related timers: If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take action if a success report is not received in this time. There is no universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD inform the user. In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State Notifications) states the following about the state: User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). The relevant contrast here is with the state: User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:41:17 2015 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 C2A341A00CC; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 m-FlNTVRoWYn; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7AA01A00C7; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiv13 with SMTP id v13so29196597lbi.1; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bXjrKjHZRlXaB3Kj7tbIPF1KhI7pTgGpDhmlQi0kYyE=; b=HrKrCQKvbQ4N3ioLD9YlvDZr7Anl0MVZQssuOl0eXco7BXVxrUFdCu++0UjqWbZTDX c8oSnWvV+lBBgN3r5PW5iIw0Ml52Dugx6w2n8C6gHlH4F+KYrPaP4Vmd2vhmIr/CCv5z ol2TFrJZ2HUc7yX0vA2qwqRx5TSOAlJEZbpVYWjSTLwYj85uTwC85wl9zYQLnzIrsvJn vrOoJmjgXdRsAtylUN14nFX/SGyevaV80ia6yDUGMnc0WDaz0MR3/G9LhSbmuFXgnbay NLYIEbgsaVCjaPSSXZuVodxzgOyPCUPOCb8M102C4bfRTXVQeCZcH+YL9aj6kRjaSmoj kvMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.243.4 with SMTP id wu4mr5525995lac.33.1425512473226; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> References: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:41:13 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WBQ4osenEt026-Adz9Olxfvlvi8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:41:15 -0000 >> In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally >> negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. >> >> Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". > > Or something. :-) > > I'd prefer this: > > In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally > negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using > SIP). Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I hadn't read it right at all, and your new version is clear. T'anks. b From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:41:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E1E331A00D0; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A341A00CC; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 m-FlNTVRoWYn; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7AA01A00C7; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbiv13 with SMTP id v13so29196597lbi.1; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bXjrKjHZRlXaB3Kj7tbIPF1KhI7pTgGpDhmlQi0kYyE=; b=HrKrCQKvbQ4N3ioLD9YlvDZr7Anl0MVZQssuOl0eXco7BXVxrUFdCu++0UjqWbZTDX c8oSnWvV+lBBgN3r5PW5iIw0Ml52Dugx6w2n8C6gHlH4F+KYrPaP4Vmd2vhmIr/CCv5z ol2TFrJZ2HUc7yX0vA2qwqRx5TSOAlJEZbpVYWjSTLwYj85uTwC85wl9zYQLnzIrsvJn vrOoJmjgXdRsAtylUN14nFX/SGyevaV80ia6yDUGMnc0WDaz0MR3/G9LhSbmuFXgnbay NLYIEbgsaVCjaPSSXZuVodxzgOyPCUPOCb8M102C4bfRTXVQeCZcH+YL9aj6kRjaSmoj kvMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.243.4 with SMTP id wu4mr5525995lac.33.1425512473226; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> References: <20150302235838.3370.58562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79556.8080404@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:41:13 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WBQ4osenEt026-Adz9Olxfvlvi8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:41:16 -0000 >> In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally >> negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP. >> >> Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP". > > Or something. :-) > > I'd prefer this: > > In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally > negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using > SIP). Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I hadn't read it right at all, and your new version is clear. T'anks. b From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:48:04 2015 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 9DE531A00E4 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:03 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 xcuRa8HEZh-i for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 915581A00CF for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so4085609iec.7 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) 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=OIhwS0PN5RYhomNsH84G6uLsnJbiNLVltpTz7/9HpYc=; b=Zl8ACfOdCEcmz8X6/ifAvpOo4Q90YYwQl8YRCd4QHJ+bmIxe9POrFuYHsJ/pB2s3Tw pJ+M+gg1eFOvTCQjRiQVl+IZgBFiWGUF/XuZFkHATSHyMtreS+RE9rNcfDrpzSZQ2P7o fIEh8qYLCy0Dnc58O7xiFaAWohZEGQi1Ut5cZKsRzLq+siVsrileGUbtucbI+7H2K9Hp yu6IVYifrcPy7TH8aGcrRRJ36Tq0TRsb7FfEwPLnRuPbwLW4MDjY5cknOLU8M8jxqvbW 7Se5EkPNR4uP7cgTPaz+PMOdKAXjQtq/PtzZFsSc09cFQAx49tcsTXqkIVpep1qWlDzh 0Ltw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnf9k8ukJwX078DZaa1OoDkK0ZFNht1lNMTVjy6JWW9M1FyV3dTQi3OwVpOLsj6/+GpH0s7 X-Received: by 10.42.206.203 with SMTP id fv11mr386946icb.72.1425512882083; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f1sm3824163iof.30.2015.03.04.15.48.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F799AF.9030900@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:47:59 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:48:03 -0000 On 3/4/15 4:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) >> >> ? > > I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He knows that. My kingdom for a comma! > He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping > between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it > is, once one gets to the group chats. Yeah, multi-party is always harder... Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:48:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6F41F1A00D0; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F601A00E6 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:04 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 Fm6s2i1J4NE4 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916291A00D0 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so71842893iec.8 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) 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=OIhwS0PN5RYhomNsH84G6uLsnJbiNLVltpTz7/9HpYc=; b=h7C1ZcnPhNtaxXZTLo6h6fqsVomCAdRFqYCKyDYmVzlKPEjj38VMbJ058cY1CZtjlg 75oXEPdjngYpzI5uX+a4qTjlPjoCBbr06VZqChhrVeSJ2Kx+IfFe/4jInoDKb+sB2232 UPhQCCZp4y1qUw4kQnxbya1ymfoSOSYNb1N+u16gVc1x1zMYQGtFclNRTuSgGp0aNrpo Nif4d81mnniyrasy7z7XYLWaM9BcQ/OQ0a1DzsYCPQ5aduAp/rquk7j4RMQbqERHqWcQ MOBuF32iv0FfiOnXI4kWjCTPDG1hUPh6WTrKDBZIweoa2WwE2rwK15yge7ZW9aFyvWp0 AosQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlASEXQn2CYhhgF/BP62UFaPEmno0gYNM6dxzMhyvImVKOmgMhL1cZAlBKu6ehTIb7o7vyj X-Received: by 10.42.206.203 with SMTP id fv11mr386946icb.72.1425512882083; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f1sm3824163iof.30.2015.03.04.15.48.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:48:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F799AF.9030900@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:47:59 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:48:04 -0000 On 3/4/15 4:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) >> >> ? > > I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He knows that. My kingdom for a comma! > He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping > between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it > is, once one gets to the group chats. Yeah, multi-party is always harder... Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:49:33 2015 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 B06321A00C8 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:31 -0800 (PST) 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 gu4IvVkWBc2P for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30A81A00CC for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so18457275ier.13 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST) 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=2eFiu/sVmxdv0q+w1f2T3bIaAVCjHtcLonaDECEk3Gw=; b=SDFJmqmBuiIXrf6ju3/OJEvk4hL2AwfmRNE40qN/gjMsK3vWOSIjWmWMIsxSFTmKG9 Q03ChNA9FLAvzCrruwEq7LWAAcEIo+3X/GB0IBvKXtarGPqtGYkFVjJ/js/36UJA9UK/ rCuTQJSuu9lzDdFX9CBZQjlFm264BdUbeWe87FjBV5LATYz+N6eJuRRxXLJjZzI82dJR pXFBeTXN55qfrtN3zPq47RKF7feF55EZa4VlT6WPgNgpy5+KVplWlPWKBN0t0O33yrSa LobeZr7bqKzCmzvHnz6p7I2KYuZXwT3eiYDI4I2yskeSNmat/ofrZppD1FGd+YA4q8XY VZQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkz4jxT1uqlLXjivYWFapb0ks5l7TaAM603pfkI8WxRj5O3werRWsECXXpz35ku4VRtY7a X-Received: by 10.42.107.70 with SMTP id c6mr412930icp.32.1425512969492; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm3864430ign.7.2015.03.04.15.49.28 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79A07.6050509@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:49:31 -0000 On 3/4/15 4:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >>>> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >>>> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >>>> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >>>> >>>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >>>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >>>> something from 6121. >>> >>> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: >>> >>> The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat >>> session to the bare JID of the contact > > Ah, OK. Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant > messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be > clearer to me (though maybe this is just me). With the long clause > there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121". Anyway, minor > thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think > right. Yep, I have this now: The syntax of the stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, Section 5.1 of [RFC6121] recommends that the value of the 'to' address be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart"). >>>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >>>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. > ... >> How about this: >> >> Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode >> characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the >> language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' >> attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST >> map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the >> original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" >> [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. > > That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks. Thanks. :-) Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:49:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CF1501A00E5; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16421A00F5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:31 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 OoslxTZSS7OM for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05DD61A00E5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so71922950iec.5 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST) 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=2eFiu/sVmxdv0q+w1f2T3bIaAVCjHtcLonaDECEk3Gw=; b=ILdZ4gs+xxnR5X1YYjeWt+urBGfL44SoB5pl3LJrqHGQjXSDWvtLSenADATGxxH83r bOBe2vInXdtFyajGxtdZfH2x2YP4b7OUuY99/qypH6LopNX3Tjop027SsSpBnpzOWqz8 i9YaWiCjGfI5JJ9EB4b0hrWeyruL4lQUP+FMQSIla2LHXJnTXwRLJl8IGHlJW55/ch3+ uFm1NCvufrioQ8tjnfC0YrMPkiwMmsk7+MJXc1ci9RmW7g2z9hUuoTqgfNerGlxADCTK 4SagaHNpO8/kY2G1XKigbCMRPPXTTFFzV1dUL1iKmiWhbyUH3xhkZ73mKe6v0TfG7go0 cyNg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGMKNee9/p08pB4qvVXO/9p7Sta+f7BjgewbVy4TX69O27j6dGDt0PnZx41TouhU0UD/AF X-Received: by 10.42.107.70 with SMTP id c6mr412930icp.32.1425512969492; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm3864430ign.7.2015.03.04.15.49.28 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79A07.6050509@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:49:32 -0000 On 3/4/15 4:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is >>>> defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the >>>> 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form >>>> "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). >>>> >>>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should >>>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of >>>> something from 6121. >>> >>> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says: >>> >>> The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat >>> session to the bare JID of the contact > > Ah, OK. Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant > messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be > clearer to me (though maybe this is just me). With the long clause > there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121". Anyway, minor > thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think > right. Yep, I have this now: The syntax of the stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, Section 5.1 of [RFC6121] recommends that the value of the 'to' address be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart"). >>>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say >>>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. > ... >> How about this: >> >> Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode >> characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the >> language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' >> attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Gateways MUST >> map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the >> original message. Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" >> [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range. > > That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks. Thanks. :-) Peter From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:52:24 2015 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 6C9441A00F5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:23 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 ssqh1TeMl6yW for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BECBB1A00F1 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so4108535iec.7 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) 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=nojsopvEg+1IfVmfU4tVnFUYAwpiVOKdYYlBkYrxR1I=; b=mynOXt24LORkmcgmaW1cAVWZLCjEBrks2iWEGgcPQg0kTkGRjQhW+GaMeoaeqm5P7O nmmvXS83ItGT8cc824ub3W33qgAMzOFMFuMzDNLiLRxiqwSK9ugdA9ZEbi2bhJ7tXLwr 0m8OYWpGglCwKfYJQ+emeN24mzxFKj20+Rou7DKmU1lv7M/1AaZII1PWLMB/GSY5yw7K cIsbpC+gzs1cqo7ECxAFPTFigFpo9f1EqJJ9eAN5u3pZTGtVHRizTX17fapxod75WDYt gx/wrBg/F9wKNZaaJR++dZs9ABsfswTpl9uFQbusxSuGY5rf4p8PaZqsTlpus4euHdbQ niyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXDkH/CxFVSNaMxPtFxDYEgKKlmFz1kFvG/pmqIJkeoZczUrHmbC+Ef+F10H7OWtPlZGDZ X-Received: by 10.50.122.68 with SMTP id lq4mr42397556igb.10.1425513140252; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a196sm3821324ioe.41.2015.03.04.15.52.18 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:52:18 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:52:23 -0000 On 3/3/15 1:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made > work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work > here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit > how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D, > just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can > find.) Yes, we might do that in all three of these specs (or, as Barry suggests, mention it in the -im spec and point there from the others). > - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it > might be better if you find some other wording. I tend to agree with Barry that this is a UX thing, not a true interop thing. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:52:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A594F1A014A; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890B21A0115 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:25 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 5rgEDX89_fYe for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8E0C1A0113 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so71943935iec.11 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) 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=nojsopvEg+1IfVmfU4tVnFUYAwpiVOKdYYlBkYrxR1I=; b=jDk+rhylGszCidoB6/onduto6qkxu+u5/SQlQ4obDKB9eqT6sIvuyVXHK8fgIDyG2K QRpeEcKeBim8Dl2dIkhs+ocZRRY1cjkaMMRn8+Xl9OYDJdoZsblpBUS7EgISx9wkVGGd UQcH2CeEt5WHarHvSBqKRqkTbfQJSRAet0027yGH9SRAVVGBFfB3wSVBA2umemrxBugA exU+kiz1wxRDTHtfO+4rNmGFnDqHK3MHHtf4VK+Hv54EQ8ZRPk4uo6Lp4kIoG8fLkiHs 7Ji1uECYtYDNGLBbh7kRFvpHR9lO0BeI2Tb50MgJjbrpbNr05s4lgdxyjQfEyWejgf5o L8Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZJUs1bbUuK7sa4WGVwK9WwBq+RfVzVzEtVo314oh/Ungtfio0soInM6+keka0TtKymbzt X-Received: by 10.50.122.68 with SMTP id lq4mr42397556igb.10.1425513140252; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a196sm3821324ioe.41.2015.03.04.15.52.18 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:52:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:52:18 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:52:25 -0000 On 3/3/15 1:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made > work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work > here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit > how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D, > just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can > find.) Yes, we might do that in all three of these specs (or, as Barry suggests, mention it in the -im spec and point there from the others). > - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it > might be better if you find some other wording. I tend to agree with Barry that this is a UX thing, not a true interop thing. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:55:56 2015 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 A38421A00F6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nH9_IfqBovTM; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D9C1A00C3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mb-aye.local (c-98-248-47-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.47.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t24NtgIH043577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 23:55:42 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <54F79B77.7050007@bogus.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:55:35 -0800 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , Peter Saint-Andre - &yet References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1" Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:55:51 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/4/15 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) >> >> ? >=20 > I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He kno= ws that. It's important to be earnest when your name is Jack. > He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping > between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it > is, once one gets to the group chats. >=20 > Barry >=20 --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlT3m3gACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrIaWACghtVdACV63A4BPHnYDBU88TPD 9y8AnAk7u3pbPHrzme7WpFZEtxRiix6n =JDqw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1-- From nobody Wed Mar 4 15:55:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C11671A0115; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38421A00F6; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nH9_IfqBovTM; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D9C1A00C3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mb-aye.local (c-98-248-47-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.47.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t24NtgIH043577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 23:55:42 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <54F79B77.7050007@bogus.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:55:35 -0800 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , Peter Saint-Andre - &yet References: <20150303130801.14912.66751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79395.4010304@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1" Archived-At: Cc: Yana Stamcheva , stox-chairs@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 04 Mar 2015 23:55:51 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/4/15 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) >> >> ? >=20 > I think Stephen isn't surprised that it's so easy to be honest. He kno= ws that. It's important to be earnest when your name is Jack. > He's just missing a comma after "easy". He thought that mapping > between the two and making it work would be harder. And I guess it > is, once one gets to the group chats. >=20 > Barry >=20 --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlT3m3gACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrIaWACghtVdACV63A4BPHnYDBU88TPD 9y8AnAk7u3pbPHrzme7WpFZEtxRiix6n =JDqw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ldI0gOuxL0eSoR4nBg86o2mTJIMpGAcp1-- From nobody Wed Mar 4 16:02:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D17C41A0113; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04681A01D5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:05 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 9KDhUYx_o5BB for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477931A00F0 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by igal13 with SMTP id l13so37999799iga.1 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:03 -0800 (PST) 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=AL/1fX7naMXgomvFTb4QiraTM436r1uWdwI2aOwvb6A=; b=XFvhrd0eb8ZVzEC7Jcta0uSwVJ/4i/FQLum7LzLV0HQtpXwG+OtbtGS/qU9yk0nM0f 8yrRpEO6wHRBC7v7o8cwGNMtQ/yeBfbW38Fh6co+jOJF90V3g9Hx2ihHQYE/FkXZQxjO H6Ubu50NYQe0aak7QsLytLosLb/DWl0AqPA4vQuO4Jg12VlLDjtSxHHeep+3cjmNvM7b dMAaIstLdVoOlgjv5lmmpQRPkmcQ1I+ivsOWrZ3MInWp5b9MNphABjatjO8794WcEexL 2UYXC8v/3Losuq5gpmgko7T5Rh6RUr5/cg0kj/k6TIMlvUBbFtaGLRD3Tb4TPqIL+vAt CCCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3zM+ifFszF0i81yATuE13oJ/sD4KWbiJ7MmdEYSt+vLMDflOLNzopYVtVVhgMf7/dhYwp X-Received: by 10.107.5.212 with SMTP id 203mr16228139iof.4.1425513723718; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm11641100igs.0.2015.03.04.16.02.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:02:01 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , The IESG References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 00:02:06 -0000 On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section > 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or > "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in > section 6, seems useful. Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 16:02:11 2015 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 CCDC81A00C3 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:06 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 q5nVCASzMh4U for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8341A007D for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so18522545ier.13 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:03 -0800 (PST) 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=AL/1fX7naMXgomvFTb4QiraTM436r1uWdwI2aOwvb6A=; b=TjwTY0hPzZQuw4A21le4HvOQLK36If+g1UQq65jBDy66lSV9VmXF3dK2LZMII/Da0/ tPYbW7IDACOZgXKX+W2rl/2Mes2JHucAPmmZip2SkSWWks/krwZgJOJ38CT8TaURfMF4 kKIF1qm27CiAwWe/GBvM2uUwRgDh4I5vdrKyHE17iXbyN0kTwlLhd4jRSktuEfcTmDwQ 25HgV3Ny2MruD5NbWFrA1MFoZqrkx4Hgr01d5vptGGArIa4mBGPZx3UXJhiwQfBidVSj tiLserGmote+K/SunmNZ+i6lBDD5PJyXH3eBGJ9bMECzijS2+bDk3T/r2nuB0cPx2csd Ee2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnf3HWfzZFjHAzW+58sHb9hiwPwhlvUKRm1x0z5lcCGSmlQyybpuiFHGOwDOxsY+LR02yzT X-Received: by 10.107.5.212 with SMTP id 203mr16228139iof.4.1425513723718; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm11641100igs.0.2015.03.04.16.02.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:02:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:02:01 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , The IESG References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 00:02:07 -0000 On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section > 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or > "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in > section 6, seems useful. Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Mar 4 21:11:29 2015 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 9AC1A1AD352; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 9fwWVVnrGr-I; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A05C1AD351; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:11:28 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw XMPP. It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the gateway. If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier than a Note: halfway through page 5. Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section would be fine). From nobody Wed Mar 4 21:11:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BB01C1AD359; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:28 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC1A1AD352; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 9fwWVVnrGr-I; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A05C1AD351; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:11:28 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw XMPP. It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the gateway. If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier than a Note: halfway through page 5. Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section would be fine). From nobody Thu Mar 5 00:00:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 475C91A9048; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:04:48 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FB31A9036 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:04:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 KOhZlHmQ_7qP for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [209.208.19.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874121A9048 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr ([2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]:60722) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTBjm-0002bZ-QA for draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:01:31 -0500 Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t24FuKL8027801; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:56:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201503041556.t24FuKL8027801@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: gen-art@ietf.org Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:56:19 +0100 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on gamay.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org Resent-Message-Id: <20150304160442.874121A9048@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:04:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Archived-At: Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:00:24 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Stox] review of draft-ietf-stox-im-12.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, 04 Mar 2015 16:04:48 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-stox-im-12.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20150226 IETF LC End Date: 20150302 IESG Telechat date: 20150305 Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - ToC page 2 and Appendix A page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - 1 page 2: even its meaning is obvious the abbrev IM is never introduced. - 1 page 3: the word groupchat does not belong formerly to the English language... - 4 page 5 (twice): acknowledgements -> acknowledgments - 8 page 8: signalling -> signaling - 11.2 page 10: the first informative reference is for a 2012 I-D. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From nobody Thu Mar 5 00:00:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 903701A8727; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:36:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B941A1A62 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:36:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.334 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 S87WJfyMoFBm for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29511A86F5 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]:42510) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YTF69-00023G-3W for draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:36:49 -0800 Received: by pdbfl12 with SMTP id fl12so28641906pdb.9 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:36:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ItnGuYI7fsFCPsyQMvx5/vZSbldLZR2DW6DuKVRFNY8=; b=jEF8Bux7lvhuuhlS4H5+TScTtqzeWRrdHfFCkFzzkVW3shyZMXLTWP37+SanYgKlt1 0NPxlHE5xkiIBkUhVBxWOBnfTUuRt5pHKos3ANWGDzqXffgobq1JEHWh0Zu0fbyVXQZZ 4V20FxYXu558VhSAO/VEvI0Ncq3acGUSHlN3gsDFCn1EtA+wNlbnRpPtZdE4FFoj+CuD oRF/dHiJnMN4SCnzklir6295mZCaRwXAhR4zZ/HdF+84XrImSyubMvIbuv3ac/HljsL6 ChBl8RjtBh/21wvRowZGuIMrk6gnF1xFoDgaDDJYAjmEXdD+ApHaXmcX6AM25UWzGUMl JCNQ== X-Received: by 10.66.184.106 with SMTP id et10mr9739079pac.138.1425497801771; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:36:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6617:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6617:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zs9sm4770550pbc.43.2015.03.04.11.36.38 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:36:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F75ECC.8020703@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:36:44 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francis Dupont , gen-art@ietf.org References: <201503041556.t24FuKL8027801@givry.fdupont.fr> In-Reply-To: <201503041556.t24FuKL8027801@givry.fdupont.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org Resent-Message-Id: <20150304193649.C29511A86F5@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:36:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Archived-At: Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:00:24 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-stox-im-12.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, 04 Mar 2015 19:36:52 -0000 > Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments Either spelling is correct (also true of judg[e]ment). grep will tell you that more RFCs use acknowledgement than acknowledgment, and more use judgment than judgement. Regards Brian On 05/03/2015 04:56, Francis Dupont wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-stox-im-12.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20150226 > IETF LC End Date: 20150302 > IESG Telechat date: 20150305 > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 2 and Appendix A page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - 1 page 2: even its meaning is obvious the abbrev IM is never > introduced. > > - 1 page 3: the word groupchat does not belong formerly to the > English language... > > - 4 page 5 (twice): acknowledgements -> acknowledgments > > - 8 page 8: signalling -> signaling > > - 11.2 page 10: the first informative reference is for a 2012 I-D. > > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > . > From nobody Thu Mar 5 05:17:33 2015 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 D39B11B29FE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:28 -0800 (PST) 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 lBkHh0Lpo0bt; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54FD31A8A7E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263628812D; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2FC1368260; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:17:43 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96" Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 13:17:29 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thi= s >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.ht= ml >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= >> COMMENT: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >> question for you to consider... >> >> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack = of >> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest >> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >=20 > The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For That is what I figured. > example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following= > for MSRP-related timers: >=20 > If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- > Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a > timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take > action if a success report is not received in this time. There is n= o > universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be= > 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. > Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report ha= s > not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOUL= D > inform the user. >=20 > In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at on= e > point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State > Notifications) states the following about the state: >=20 > User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, > or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). >=20 > The relevant contrast here is with the state: >=20 > User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an > intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >=20 > There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of > XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to you and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. Thanks for the quick response! Regards, Brian --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU+Fd3AAoJEBOZRqCi7goqXD0IAM0fDvAPWhtMKOzcLJtMP3tW AoFBMGArFFpsxhGlOLEFgiLzF1NKRF86dxgwru6e34IdvcNCLIbc8K0wD/0ENE2n kzN2/7ZFWPp3WdWLusCUTXzxEFBURsm8IGM399CcTBWbn6N87m0omFrFVSPIVcXN N++MXfMNig3qqsw1FAsVs93ORkbMtjL84t/xRscfgnD9LCECLwcfhW04DBFNK7da Fb1dpt1nUgDWGd6R+S9asVuIgs45PXDGeVQEpavmUboqzZ0dwcOh4p5JMWa4juWI HG66d8dH1xRG/yYdCQhFDohQGMaEZB7vrlCdXKSQmeCqVhnPP7MevcNjumUuIio= =z5bR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 05:17:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 021791A8A7E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:28 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39B11B29FE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:28 -0800 (PST) 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 lBkHh0Lpo0bt; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54FD31A8A7E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263628812D; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2FC1368260; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:17:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:17:43 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96" Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 13:17:29 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thi= s >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.ht= ml >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= >> COMMENT: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >> question for you to consider... >> >> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack = of >> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest >> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >=20 > The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For That is what I figured. > example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following= > for MSRP-related timers: >=20 > If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- > Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a > timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take > action if a success report is not received in this time. There is n= o > universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be= > 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. > Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report ha= s > not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOUL= D > inform the user. >=20 > In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at on= e > point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State > Notifications) states the following about the state: >=20 > User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, > or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). >=20 > The relevant contrast here is with the state: >=20 > User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an > intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >=20 > There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of > XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to you and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. Thanks for the quick response! Regards, Brian --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU+Fd3AAoJEBOZRqCi7goqXD0IAM0fDvAPWhtMKOzcLJtMP3tW AoFBMGArFFpsxhGlOLEFgiLzF1NKRF86dxgwru6e34IdvcNCLIbc8K0wD/0ENE2n kzN2/7ZFWPp3WdWLusCUTXzxEFBURsm8IGM399CcTBWbn6N87m0omFrFVSPIVcXN N++MXfMNig3qqsw1FAsVs93ORkbMtjL84t/xRscfgnD9LCECLwcfhW04DBFNK7da Fb1dpt1nUgDWGd6R+S9asVuIgs45PXDGeVQEpavmUboqzZ0dwcOh4p5JMWa4juWI HG66d8dH1xRG/yYdCQhFDohQGMaEZB7vrlCdXKSQmeCqVhnPP7MevcNjumUuIio= =z5bR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --q7XpQXBUvbJOv0LlUUJ5GoEcKgduoBC96-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:32:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 03B4A1A1A0C; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3861A19E5 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 BGzL8g_A6vCK for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D6511A0242 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so47261066igb.5 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:48 -0800 (PST) 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=gXO+trQpOuv4YB0z/Rj60KyYzDF90wwaGj84ukudUhM=; b=STq6WX19G1yJOdUL5abqrfG/XJAwXVbL4tl8ZfytGlz/ZGAdXdRp3yoGdVsFe5GZKO GzwFDNWbyUmtgAcPwJN70gL+oAz4dG8fpF46Nr18NM/rw18VVj3WWpuSClerWxSlBput Id2tHqMM4XyWbcqNvLDF6Ni9tG9IMjzIhvYTmX5GCYdT/vHybxPWUsViTeSWUZ0VDNyF usQjZO953iFlmSyp9PJsqr2EpYSmqZ2kIfNXLSeGkDU/9wXGLQnGWagYNg/7iLDa2HSB n78vfAXE4vGwe7+1BEnSpjZo6op9LrKEtDIwnXuZLqJGQYB8SIkJFwSj+etetSVoc4Xi uCig== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEpBG9UM5ur97pqC71eXpPCOHmw6iGsZQ8BFS3N8Y6b9SSIbLTmerJnluDik0VBb+PCyj0 X-Received: by 10.107.155.13 with SMTP id d13mr20935505ioe.29.1425572868601; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k9sm5292143ige.6.2015.03.05.08.27.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:27:47 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins , The IESG References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:32:58 -0000 Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. > > I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please > remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding > of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw > XMPP. > > It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there > is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message > was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the > gateway. Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end but that's an extension to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. > If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier > than a Note: halfway through page 5. > > Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, > TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually > receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the > right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but > the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the > other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's > worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section > would be fine). RFC 7247 says: As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RFC5630], a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation Protocol Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a communication path need to be protected using TLS. Because XMPP lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if the To header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the SIP-to- XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP stanza and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there might be exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among two operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are quite rare). Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:33:15 2015 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 75ED61A1A0C for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:33:01 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 iXKNBVVOQ6um for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FAA11A1B9A for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so4709017ieb.2 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:48 -0800 (PST) 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=gXO+trQpOuv4YB0z/Rj60KyYzDF90wwaGj84ukudUhM=; b=VmpoTiua+REoS9ZjbqLnS5KLyifO6qQpFi0OuFEUoV97uglwuv5N9wAJaWa4wTHayf s/VqgxVQ6qGSzxbg2Zpua6xv2X+Grvu6MIcSwOEDc5KgOanOz7Fs1F6Xhr1BsZ0yAHUK x7VE8Pax21sWgtbpq3kGwzulpwa6dbQf3YWezNfbuaPhBSWxG+acGw6rISKkgAvVT9dl u4ACgNZxOnJkw0RoZTx8CyrvOgfXvOuAutU7sKylBL4UoJqWpui6aiHSFqMD0KPESmt8 IBgxXm39qdWmBKK6sg6+yzecATmeUqe7gLkwdbH+RpI8bE/LXwbebuD65QrpPtZRkhaF nyAw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmA0GgrQm08yuQku6y/yeKxZB/7/0cT6R0YbU6jUJm3QkmRH53RThedftKQ0f5yXfwZcTiY X-Received: by 10.107.155.13 with SMTP id d13mr20935505ioe.29.1425572868601; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k9sm5292143ige.6.2015.03.05.08.27.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:27:47 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins , The IESG References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:33:01 -0000 Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. > > I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please > remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding > of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw > XMPP. > > It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there > is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message > was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the > gateway. Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end but that's an extension to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. > If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier > than a Note: halfway through page 5. > > Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, > TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually > receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the > right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but > the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the > other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's > worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section > would be fine). RFC 7247 says: As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RFC5630], a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation Protocol Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a communication path need to be protected using TLS. Because XMPP lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if the To header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the SIP-to- XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP stanza and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there might be exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among two operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are quite rare). Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:48:18 2015 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 4F5AB1A00D8 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:14 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 lXe4pKkAqwBt for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D1D1A1A74 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so77880203iec.8 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) 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=j42ZcRM0DQU9iCQQXycYtZCxFccCbzIkpUrZXtSnfcY=; b=Kc+noTyMCLoNucgJbxQj2Av80WNSCToghP7t2xwwZX9jsHIV2o0ZwCNEpjoD5NG5oU noMi5HV4kEyuirU9FBMqFqqUuvQihzkv3Pog5JeZWwlUIYVhHMTajLjby1gqLYe1+SQq ATpVWUvb+CskJ1/uwuQY0r7b+CUp52PPpl5r4ymC31cIvlyhE6dUpSAy2FvJZ5uMhisn Yjj690d26b2w+kTRT9/KixDDycW282QpeUtg8PG1QAoJKu/jAw+UVWPnZl1tV0y6AqMU /L429SDX55qZ0q0OB7PXSbqb7UnxDVVJYJib0nO2XyTIWtjyHaKgVNugjASfbQGiumFR CESw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZ6CF/fiIqDRLlF9CWK+X4wyr6s//xdx3Lde34F/BRfutuoG+7D7FNxxmrRoR4WOBW9CrL X-Received: by 10.107.132.220 with SMTP id o89mr22104132ioi.9.1425573606192; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm5267831iom.29.2015.03.05.08.40.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:40:04 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:48:14 -0000 On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >>> question for you to consider... >>> >>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of >>> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest >>> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >> >> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For > > That is what I figured. > >> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following >> for MSRP-related timers: >> >> If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- >> Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a >> timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take >> action if a success report is not received in this time. There is no >> universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be >> 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. >> Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has >> not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD >> inform the user. >> >> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one >> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State >> Notifications) states the following about the state: >> >> User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, >> or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). >> >> The relevant contrast here is with the state: >> >> User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an >> intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >> >> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of >> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. > > I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to you > and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. We might say something like this: It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes). Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:48:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 410ED1A1AF0; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A1D1A1AD0 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:16 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 gLWUqyYYxqui for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97D21A1A8A for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by ierx19 with SMTP id x19so78055452ier.3 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) 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=j42ZcRM0DQU9iCQQXycYtZCxFccCbzIkpUrZXtSnfcY=; b=HXVOj3fhBF42j55CXJyn0enyMJZ2TSWTTbl56V26hnwzxqVDRUv91bsRZ7J7PQmRKv mudkvCZXNS2Xkngl0bI73gLxagmImZKjFhn8bRRaRzAtkuo5aGgqlZFcv2aRhtSOemVf +17tms0yuiVN98yjn6+sEkj2tAnEAjYWhsmscRkUj9brUKmCp9Bkj1u8OdLS9GZY3zp9 CedOb8uIr/9IQ3aSGmzZSAPI6HH/cwGr66p1zr67h0+3rmpY2XWVvu95KP41J8GSz6rh S0/BTQZ3Ys4PIae4wWlTMC/3TD1Ydv2cXKAY3/9uHSGZj0KC20zOdUFbiWjMVo0EQJFT Y7+w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQ8Hnje3OFWnFcwxfJYA0IEcpeDIZTeH/pVPZKiCdOg3jpBVhpWoRgRW1aK33Ewc9XKzhg X-Received: by 10.107.132.220 with SMTP id o89mr22104132ioi.9.1425573606192; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm5267831iom.29.2015.03.05.08.40.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:40:04 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:48:16 -0000 On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >>> question for you to consider... >>> >>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of >>> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document suggest >>> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >> >> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For > > That is what I figured. > >> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following >> for MSRP-related timers: >> >> If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success- >> Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a >> timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take >> action if a success report is not received in this time. There is no >> universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may be >> 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second. >> Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has >> not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD >> inform the user. >> >> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one >> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State >> Notifications) states the following about the state: >> >> User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, >> or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes). >> >> The relevant contrast here is with the state: >> >> User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an >> intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >> >> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of >> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. > > I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to you > and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. We might say something like this: It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes). Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:53:28 2015 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 C2B5B1A009E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:25 -0800 (PST) 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 UFq8sZWKyYv2; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1E051A1B0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7945988154; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F65136825A; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8898E.8010304@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:51:26 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe" Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:53:25 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/5/15 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >>> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to al= l >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut t= his >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>>> >>>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >>>> question for you to consider... >>>> >>>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the >>>> lack of >>>> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document sugges= t >>>> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >>>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >>> >>> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For= >> >> That is what I figured. >> >>> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the followi= ng >>> for MSRP-related timers: >>> >>> If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-= >>> Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run = a >>> timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take= >>> action if a success report is not received in this time. There >>> is no >>> universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may= be >>> 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second= =2E >>> Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report= >>> has >>> not been received by the time the session is ended, the device >>> SHOULD >>> inform the user. >>> >>> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at = one >>> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State= >>> Notifications) states the following about the state: >>> >>> User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, >>> or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes)= =2E >>> >>> The relevant contrast here is with the state: >>> >>> User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an >>> intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >>> >>> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics o= f >>> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. >> >> I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to yo= u >> and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. >=20 > We might say something like this: >=20 > It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that > automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not > sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time > ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has > not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device fo= r > a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes). >=20 WFM! Brian --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU+ImUAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqSE0IALk+SKyODOaJ0lcMW4lCUEc2 FS2ClfJhjFDIF0TTNz0HXGGdcFjiVK7SN01MHRzbVRMTsX0B3NBS8LEtWXVrGKwm ODCplnw2EZEVnbniGWeQ2RE6AYy+TmX3yaZevaY7z5GDTm0xbXfuRNa+2qPStjtQ JbgFPtkKdF87OmkGBdrtO1o1Lcul8tfXSRKP/bmSklHet2UMYNOrN6f2SXW0gIm8 ClldvgpbomklSFg9v7ggVUzXvjc5ueREeDiXNcRxY6JtnlhtXNVGAqAjZyY9m3+r 4guj0r5osRR9aEj8G1UzQ33pV9URUrpuB9gIsGRPbfgwgIi07k0jYR+OZgKiR/w= =yR8x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 08:53:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E53891A00F7; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B5B1A009E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:25 -0800 (PST) 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 UFq8sZWKyYv2; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1E051A1B0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7945988154; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F65136825A; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8898E.8010304@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:51:26 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe" Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 16:53:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/5/15 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >>> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to al= l >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut t= his >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>>> >>>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a >>>> question for you to consider... >>>> >>>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the >>>> lack of >>>> a GONE message in XMPP. Any thoughts on having this document sugges= t >>>> possible values for such timers? Not sure if that makes sense for >>>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask. >>> >>> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For= >> >> That is what I figured. >> >>> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the followi= ng >>> for MSRP-related timers: >>> >>> If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-= >>> Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run = a >>> timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take= >>> action if a success report is not received in this time. There >>> is no >>> universal value for this timer. For many IM applications, it may= be >>> 2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second= =2E >>> Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report= >>> has >>> not been received by the time the session is ended, the device >>> SHOULD >>> inform the user. >>> >>> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at = one >>> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State= >>> Notifications) states the following about the state: >>> >>> User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system, >>> or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes)= =2E >>> >>> The relevant contrast here is with the state: >>> >>> User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an >>> intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes). >>> >>> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics o= f >>> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers. >> >> I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment. It's up to yo= u >> and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile. >=20 > We might say something like this: >=20 > It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that > automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not > sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time > ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has > not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device fo= r > a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes). >=20 WFM! Brian --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU+ImUAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqSE0IALk+SKyODOaJ0lcMW4lCUEc2 FS2ClfJhjFDIF0TTNz0HXGGdcFjiVK7SN01MHRzbVRMTsX0B3NBS8LEtWXVrGKwm ODCplnw2EZEVnbniGWeQ2RE6AYy+TmX3yaZevaY7z5GDTm0xbXfuRNa+2qPStjtQ JbgFPtkKdF87OmkGBdrtO1o1Lcul8tfXSRKP/bmSklHet2UMYNOrN6f2SXW0gIm8 ClldvgpbomklSFg9v7ggVUzXvjc5ueREeDiXNcRxY6JtnlhtXNVGAqAjZyY9m3+r 4guj0r5osRR9aEj8G1UzQ33pV9URUrpuB9gIsGRPbfgwgIi07k0jYR+OZgKiR/w= =yR8x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:28:50 2015 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 5364C1A1B62; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Lwijh7FDJmpQ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6881A07BE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by lamq1 with SMTP id q1so29880726lam.9; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ooRbP2ZahFRMwpvlHu8IRZhE2W//n0OyXifNNKJKY9I=; b=MLI/pLgGwQ7J7kGZMAlNIyPmQXnu67muKXNSFqoA2pjp7lb0rrBY9b825ylVjADKeZ 2n29NX9/qRK09ORc6jyt1G+ESisMhBS7wS1NfUHph/tgniWtCr4dsb8Kplvp3lPFhGby b4jjbiszRP0ssIdjJK9WYpUNRsRiLa0iiwS3ZfaPkNp88tCtbsKJXkgWSY/Yrx6EZ3j+ DpeH12mCDrcPFWktzwaPa/IpyMA0LjyLgmzGXWfrkE+LnWgj1eoCUEMQoDnq13n88o5E b172N6tudzaCjeLi6Rs2NEpcfy0AlLAZTQ5hNnHA81SsUCKpWmIHum9XrtTvW1I4fLXM CClg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.98.201 with SMTP id ek9mr9232669lbb.68.1425576520559; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.22.100 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:28:40 -0600 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:28:50 -0000 --001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Peter, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. > > On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. >> >> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please >> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding >> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw >> XMPP. >> >> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there >> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message >> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >> gateway. >> > > Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) > > In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end < > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html> but that's an extension to the > core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session mode > messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of > draft-ietf-stox-im. I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". Is that even true? :-) > If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier >> than a Note: halfway through page 5. >> >> Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, >> TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually >> receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the >> right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but >> the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the >> other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's >> worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section >> would be fine). >> > > RFC 7247 says: > > As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RFC5630], > a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation Protocol > Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a > communication path need to be protected using TLS. Because XMPP > lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if the To > header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the SIP-to- > XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP stanza > and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there might be > exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among two > operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are quite > rare). > > Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context? > I think that's fine. Spencer --001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <pe= ter@andyet.net> wrote:
Hi S= pencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discu= ss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/



-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
COMMENT:
-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------

I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that.
I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please
remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw
XMPP.

It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message
was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the
gateway.

 Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)

In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end <http:/= /xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html> but that's an extensi= on to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session m= ode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of draft-= ietf-stox-im.

I think I understood that. I = was just thinking it might be good to say something like "IMs don'= t return an indication of success or failure, and if you need that, you wan= t to use chat instead".=C2=A0

Is that even tr= ue? :-)
=C2=A0
If there's not, that might be worth p= ointing out a bit earlier
than a Note: halfway through page 5.

Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening,
TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually
receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the<= br> right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but=
the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the
other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it&= #39;s
worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section
would be fine).

 RFC 7247 says:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RF= C5630],
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation P= rotocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0communication path need to be protected using TLS.=C2=A0 Becau= se XMPP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if t= he To
=C2=A0 =C2=A0header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the = SIP-to-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP s= tanza
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there mi= ght be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among = two
=C2=A0 =C2=A0operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are = quite
=C2=A0 =C2=A0rare).

Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context?

I think that's fine.

Spe= ncer=C2=A0

--001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:28:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7712D1A1B7D; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5364C1A1B62; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Lwijh7FDJmpQ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6881A07BE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by lamq1 with SMTP id q1so29880726lam.9; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ooRbP2ZahFRMwpvlHu8IRZhE2W//n0OyXifNNKJKY9I=; b=MLI/pLgGwQ7J7kGZMAlNIyPmQXnu67muKXNSFqoA2pjp7lb0rrBY9b825ylVjADKeZ 2n29NX9/qRK09ORc6jyt1G+ESisMhBS7wS1NfUHph/tgniWtCr4dsb8Kplvp3lPFhGby b4jjbiszRP0ssIdjJK9WYpUNRsRiLa0iiwS3ZfaPkNp88tCtbsKJXkgWSY/Yrx6EZ3j+ DpeH12mCDrcPFWktzwaPa/IpyMA0LjyLgmzGXWfrkE+LnWgj1eoCUEMQoDnq13n88o5E b172N6tudzaCjeLi6Rs2NEpcfy0AlLAZTQ5hNnHA81SsUCKpWmIHum9XrtTvW1I4fLXM CClg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.98.201 with SMTP id ek9mr9232669lbb.68.1425576520559; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.22.100 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:28:40 -0600 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:28:50 -0000 --001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Peter, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. > > On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. >> >> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please >> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding >> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw >> XMPP. >> >> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there >> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message >> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >> gateway. >> > > Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) > > In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end < > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html> but that's an extension to the > core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session mode > messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of > draft-ietf-stox-im. I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". Is that even true? :-) > If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier >> than a Note: halfway through page 5. >> >> Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, >> TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually >> receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the >> right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but >> the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the >> other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's >> worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section >> would be fine). >> > > RFC 7247 says: > > As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RFC5630], > a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation Protocol > Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a > communication path need to be protected using TLS. Because XMPP > lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if the To > header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the SIP-to- > XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP stanza > and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there might be > exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among two > operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are quite > rare). > > Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context? > I think that's fine. Spencer --001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <pe= ter@andyet.net> wrote:
Hi S= pencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discu= ss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/



-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
COMMENT:
-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------

I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that.
I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please
remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw
XMPP.

It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message
was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the
gateway.

 Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)

In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end <http:/= /xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html> but that's an extensi= on to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for session m= ode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat instead of draft-= ietf-stox-im.

I think I understood that. I = was just thinking it might be good to say something like "IMs don'= t return an indication of success or failure, and if you need that, you wan= t to use chat instead".=C2=A0

Is that even tr= ue? :-)
=C2=A0
If there's not, that might be worth p= ointing out a bit earlier
than a Note: halfway through page 5.

Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening,
TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually
receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the<= br> right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but=
the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the
other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it&= #39;s
worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section
would be fine).

 RFC 7247 says:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0As specified in Section 26.4.4 of [RFC3261] and updated by [RF= C5630],
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a To header or a Request-URI containing a Session Initiation P= rotocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Secure (SIPS) URI is used to indicate that all hops in a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0communication path need to be protected using TLS.=C2=A0 Becau= se XMPP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be protected, if t= he To
=C2=A0 =C2=A0header or Request-URI of a SIP message is a SIPS URI then the = SIP-to-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0XMPP gateway MUST NOT translate the SIP message into an XMPP s= tanza
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and MUST NOT route it to the destination XMPP server (there mi= ght be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0exceptions to such a policy, such as explicit agreement among = two
=C2=A0 =C2=A0operators to enforce per-hop security, but currently they are = quite
=C2=A0 =C2=A0rare).

Do you feel that we need to say more here in the IM context?

I think that's fine.

Spe= ncer=C2=A0

--001a11345c8c1bb0e205108de639-- From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:36:03 2015 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 8DC8C1A1BA7 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:36:02 -0800 (PST) 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 aWM3Y7mI4JaF for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:36:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 020A01A0146 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:36:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecvy18 with SMTP id vy18so14407618iec.9 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:36:00 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e26SEBiGMvzZGpTEVxDGyo/OAlIuLwcZv2u+hvdVGms=; b=kBJyrzivJ0oRaZsMiWIA5K8WrVtZyEDmQLslRTBcfMLj7Y7W7hyhwQwb6GZ7A2B4u0 0YQd89cX7RaEWtLFrt8sS9nMxNaf6r/ruy0KFgJeD47E7mqS3JSHQcrbhV5DIH+lavtk LlFfQfHCtTKCPQacpQZSn3z089uZucHCSZjbFjHUhabpJxzyr86QFCYw7zw5goVL/ufZ OgeWEkmMEdW1fDc40l8rnj44U1ihlLphbIV8DPD3c7j71tdgs6LbPCZBMkJwZ/W2Ciee 8eWnOaICaHVT4HNns3k3KBt1byekCic9FQY1vVAfbTQ79irpKYHz2KgNYE86NpXxSOWA dHZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk0i4aVsFcNQtC/dmDwoHvInPGmgG8QUWIzklyWfsY231xdubqwq14rTS88om73JFYgzClE X-Received: by 10.42.37.144 with SMTP id y16mr4915210icd.51.1425576960454; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:36:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y142sm5364401iod.25.2015.03.05.09.35.59 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:35:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F893FF.1060901@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:35:59 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , The IESG , "stox@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:36:02 -0000 My apologies for missing the IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat (it seems that email notifications were not set up for that I-D as they were for the others). For WG participants, you can find the comments here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ballot/ Barry Leiba wrote: -- Section 5.5.2 -- The XMPP message type ought to be "chat" (and is not allowed to be "groupchat"). I think this is fine, but because of your careful and measured use of 2119 throughout the document set, I wonder how this is meant to be different from 'and MUST NOT be "groupchat"'? Those guidelines come from XEP-0045, so repeating the normative keywords from there seems ill-advised. -- Section 5.8 -- I suggest: OLD | Time to go! NEW | O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost Sure. You're really getting into the Shakespearean spirit, eh? -- Section 10 -- My comment in stox-chat applies here, as well, though I note that in this case you do not already have a reference to stox-im to work with. Right - there's no established method for encryption of multi-party messaging (that problem is even harder than one-to-one messaging). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:45:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E4D191A1EF1; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83DD1A1BD9 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:08 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 PEPLFegVDXxg for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84011A1EF1 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecvy18 with SMTP id vy18so14464692iec.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) 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=WP4nGtEmbMzo8ieDolANtYtZeP7326EVAWqi8Xfu+7M=; b=jEqYE+JEUMmwykF7q2MkYYVKvSorjFU0Th4oekyQpumzOa9yYskLtF/15CO/wttmTn EXXEjlg0m9M9OtH2bYBjs+p9wxY6Ge9CkhJd/XmirYNF2oB4UeWLXuKg5cXzWJRyEH3Y mRYdOYrv0vyuRzQqaO3KaGKdj39pOWM5QGwHt9m5ad1ThPMLFy+fgJWxRBVNSBZQydMp VPGwOdndT6mBzTTFYiqPLb854NjY4fCHmFY6eh9FJfktUQEaXhV7Z6X1pE/0UZrBv9JS 5juov6aWY1Jktj4R5hN2g6qEnneooaB/nepcnCIk89A2zreJT4BgNkNIHorCHUKXKE6x Fagg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneGonkw6vt2oOpv1k1uEgfNp7iiG6OW6FyFG6q+mU7OeDen268CO9uvrSBWKcG/UCztK/0 X-Received: by 10.50.142.38 with SMTP id rt6mr21997648igb.39.1425577504953; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s10sm5426595igr.2.2015.03.05.09.45.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:45:03 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:45:09 -0000 On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Peter, > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet > > wrote: > > Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. > > On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > > ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- > > I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for > that. > > I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, > please > remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent > understanding > of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw > XMPP. > > It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, > whether there > is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a > message > was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the > gateway. > > > Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) > > In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end > > but that's an extension > to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for > session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat > instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. > > > I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say > something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, > and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". That sounds reasonable. The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for single instant messages). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:45:21 2015 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 0CFDA1A1BE3 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:12 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 zxCBfGSiDSYP for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFF801A1EF2 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so47747261igb.3 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) 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=WP4nGtEmbMzo8ieDolANtYtZeP7326EVAWqi8Xfu+7M=; b=B7mjABqI/6aIS55OvJMpBiL/t577aodcRHbDKWdqZOAKVnTF5OzZUDRNRObhU/By/d KJqLqlgVP8GwE8nitrkBY0oq/7RcEBLOms1Yyt3C04cSm3aOCW6TCcWtdU9eo7eDANJf 4gvhNvO/TjIWUIkH7O3e4rhNuzL88Hy6yHfHw38om2kX8WIQ354DwWM76T1Z5Mj25pi6 qQ3iwQvtQ6U/tCah9zWx1WWNY94K+6dtkP8MVM0gHfOWI+7s01nruv7SjwAQMGvXyCZ/ TDve+Bj2cRI/tKIa2h/8P4I41MhmI+C9jZldi41wYY/kMNELkbxS8dD/282mDC4P9503 rcRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl8aPbA7uH722Fg1otA/JnzwcmI+M67KEufstDn2vP/yH1vAdBVKSyDjTNmnmlJ5yptFatp X-Received: by 10.50.142.38 with SMTP id rt6mr21997648igb.39.1425577504953; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s10sm5426595igr.2.2015.03.05.09.45.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:45:03 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:45:12 -0000 On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Peter, > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet > > wrote: > > Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. > > On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ > > > > > ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- > > I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for > that. > > I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, > please > remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent > understanding > of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw > XMPP. > > It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, > whether there > is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a > message > was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the > gateway. > > > Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) > > In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end > > but that's an extension > to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for > session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat > instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. > > > I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say > something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, > and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". That sounds reasonable. The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for single instant messages). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 09:58:42 2015 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 958561A1EFD for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:58:39 -0800 (PST) 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 OdtzGnu0Xt60 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D2151A1EF5 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by ierx19 with SMTP id x19so78747799ier.3 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:58:37 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Np2pemyS1GN9N6z5St7cHdZoEH808tAdutf+X6v8L4A=; b=GzHj1ggwKkOpxuOpei+wQYuCUTc0gwJb/larh4cCSf8YKABiZDpzO+NzTaQxs2F0WE odfZ8eudDeeWWgdpkdtf03OwRWeqk18rzn+vzpB8s+goDr8doukGvJZ9KEZdWFjF8TXI MAusijnyHeKgy0p0luvsJ0JMDfKpRdazNcGq64K3Rrrg9X6pLwUZJn4PvxRWoFRbhEV0 ZFazRQrMn3OgUi14UiySaKx3D+Ne8QRtil3tETIAB04cCHR0W2rJn8TxW8I1m+qaaJe/ h50B+RQoT3tE45DuSSWWh475XCcnWFt/S07ukoQAdPc0WeqkgoCCuFZIpt0VSBxGqZbu Kykg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXaKR0vy8Uy/RoaqBEbuiPvI5t+idQnbjgJTD9uRpozGbyBg/xaiJyjqT7Fs8k5wzsMPcA X-Received: by 10.42.47.73 with SMTP id n9mr5228941icf.20.1425578317661; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qr1sm13230724igb.18.2015.03.05.09.58.36 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:58:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8994C.7050702@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:58:36 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu, The IESG , "stox@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] Martin Stiemerling comment's on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 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, 05 Mar 2015 17:58:39 -0000 Again, my apologies for missing the comments in the IESG evaluation record. Martin Stiemerling wrote: Two question about this text out of the ACK section: "Some text in this document was borrowed from [RFC7247] and from [XEP-0045]." This draft has the standard IETF copyright template upfront and 'borrows' text from [XEP-0045]. I assume borrows actually mean copying text, isn't it? Do the authors and the responsible AD see any conflicts between the copyright of [XEP-0045] and the copyright of this document? Are the borrowed text parts out of [XEP-0045] marked somehow? I could find the parts. I just scanned draft-ietf-stox-groupchat and I could not find any text copied from XEP-0045. We might have had such text in an earlier version, but I don't see any now. Thus I think it would be best to remove that acknowledgement (after verifying that there is indeed no copied text). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:16:05 2015 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 AE0DF1A3BA4; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) 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 cccIf-Tbd40K; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B4D1A6EE7; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305181602.25873.35010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:16:03 -0000 IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:16:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CD6E71A6F0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0DF1A3BA4; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) 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 cccIf-Tbd40K; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B4D1A6EE7; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305181602.25873.35010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:16:02 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:16:04 -0000 IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:16:42 2015 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 CF51B1A6EE9; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:41 -0800 (PST) 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 4vzep-8HB4pL; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA07D1A6EDE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305181640.4210.10585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:16:42 -0000 IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:16:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 11CC11A6F04; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:42 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF51B1A6EE9; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:41 -0800 (PST) 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 4vzep-8HB4pL; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA07D1A6EDE; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150305181640.4210.10585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:16:40 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] ID Tracker State Update Notice: 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:16:42 -0000 IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:28:20 2015 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 12CEF1A1ADF for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:28:15 -0800 (PST) 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 E7oIa1Jl7Nu5 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3808D1A1BEE for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by igdh15 with SMTP id h15so48224888igd.3 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:28:09 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fNWkHxFauP4b/bTx6vcoRCYXkTZiQO9sEdLEzM563ak=; b=EYAjXWJeyB1MuzY6OGFm7j1wcMgKr0PqURtNJT3iTg3aTV8UTl+lirACdzFXUikfiU HbdGTNnbLtLB4qWbXwbYFCG+4VL7neElEf/5K1JsjJiciWqkk3lN2Had7XFsaaMk4sRQ XEz/vg/vW7XBq7T7FEzR3EOoVJjL4FPljSEh1lMiuOnBfyrKqb1YjfnnhluaoEIUb2HT 2wWuvp1l0dvfEKjNxt6NFZ9KBrZgfCRYm1daCKm9yfefEKyWyVF0DYeoABC6Aup92WID rcj2pSZFSXGhIa1oeteEH3x4W/qN6EcCINHD+DZ8wJjsfjpCPWqKEh5laTI/rALxpDLz grDg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAkKhn6RgUyk4IgYEgBjyi8ayoHmnqIJXNyyTcdxlZmWQyRP7FVH3C9SMxyNEMbjZ+Yq4p X-Received: by 10.107.132.39 with SMTP id g39mr2373892iod.62.1425580089583; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l197sm5464134iol.1.2015.03.05.10.28.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:28:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8A038.9040800@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:28:08 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , The IESG , "stox@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] Pete Resnick's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 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, 05 Mar 2015 18:28:15 -0000 Still catching up on missed feedback... Pete Resnick wrote: 4: There's a noun missing here: By contrast, in MSRP sessions (including groupchat sessions) are considered to be a type of media (similar to audio/video sessions) Actually that should be "in MSRP," or "sessions (including groupchat sessions) in MSRP"... The bullet list refers to "muc.example.com", but Figure 1 shows "rooms.example.com". Noted. The particular endpoints for both romeo and juliet are not shown in the figure, but the bullet list doesn't say, "not shown in diagram". I think it's best to specify that each of those things at the bottom of the diagram are indeed the endpoints. You can't communicate from a mere account, only from a connected endpoint. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:37:46 2015 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 DCEF21A1A59 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:43 -0800 (PST) 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 rD03ovaRwkwP for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0BCC1A6EF9 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by igkb16 with SMTP id b16so48329141igk.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7BnLCMe4j44jYwreimrg4X6fxqhm54aGp/Q+nzLHugM=; b=B2bXHKx8ZDk8K5MNTJc00J4HsHKRyG5QUOOaGy7+eoeMKpCGLZ0DP3GLAWr9k9C2DA KOIwGDoMDIuMwyoYGXyAcUnHWGu27l9lAZB75P4Io8imMfpSP8koozOPK2KrSu6SiD8f macq3Bs3VWV/8MSFCEcPS273/QPB9zbwXlzPUw+Fskr5GrVyw4VO1JtZK/cXzbVAN0Xq PvW54NYzYsTmlwXZoCekfSM8x6vZgG6da4wwKzoIqbKBWHPSv3L6l9/kKYsGqvgfcafj 36TUrZ+omGfIfATp/XQ2QuQsbSapyPct8NREvbZ2Nk0ghJG9BedWMAgChz946oGJ472l MOqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJw7aganImdQGkV5iDbeYGQ4a2QlihGCqkKk8+XvkADueqkjH1IOCvk8cjARXr5lx4QllI X-Received: by 10.107.136.230 with SMTP id s99mr21956484ioi.8.1425580661325; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z3sm5510632igl.1.2015.03.05.10.37.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8A273.3010807@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:37:39 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG , "stox@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 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, 05 Mar 2015 18:37:44 -0000 One last set of comments... Stephen Farrell wrote: - Figure 1 is way complicated. I guess it might just need to be but it's fairly unreadable. If you think it worth looking at again, then maybe dropping the outer boundary "lines" might make it clearer. Yeah, it's messy, but then so is the underlying architecture. I'll experiment with the ASCII art a bit to see if I can make it more legible. - 5.4: is the use of ellipsis for the SIP version of xmpp's "from" in table 3 sufficiently clear? Are there any quote characters or other stuff that might be gotten wrong? I wonder if the tables are a little too terse. They might be too terse. We'll take a closer look at them to see if we can explain them a bit more clearly. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 10:55:18 2015 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 35B3E1A7025; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:55:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vcJhYK3ZDx7b; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CDC1A7022; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by labgf13 with SMTP id gf13so28836966lab.5; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:55:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=axW2p1JmiTl+DDdZAZ6zDWziA3KS4PrWe3ZxtwdzNHI=; b=FUSlL5ACFA8iCo61vh6AEPJu3eKJ6McA54YRecaXkUHw5QrBRFPTNSL6K3/2gYJHMp Rn9uc0zVCpNhGNyqc3ByUFwJ3tF6zH+CIkYCnXCv/tbhP63ukKlQ8v1JXMeQsMaZ2WPR zGugFyp2si3gQZ59MuM3D39Nqz5ZRLCt8SUKE9mRVR+Uc4YgX7IBcym2ob+pXrpqS+Gf nV3UbH7/VU2iRshxtHmGPVQgIWa/nW8ups2CJaaWMGWjY3Oe2fIhGaFpHZsvB1shPuL5 KX4ZYAo6L09QHfgt1n23FNIBhTz1qKLxmwhgdndsarbqkvNYupykcJU8hbLIKcuLhfaa gDaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.243.4 with SMTP id wu4mr9513518lac.33.1425581707504; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:55:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:55:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F893FF.1060901@andyet.net> References: <54F893FF.1060901@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:55:07 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: i6iat4RGKW6uYKQLSxlIdxTLZrs Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: "stox@ietf.org" , The IESG Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 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, 05 Mar 2015 18:55:10 -0000 >> -- Section 5.5.2 -- >> >> The XMPP message type ought to >> be "chat" (and is not allowed to be "groupchat"). >> >> I think this is fine, but because of your careful and measured use >> of 2119 throughout the document set, I wonder how this is meant to >> be different from 'and MUST NOT be "groupchat"'? > > Those guidelines come from XEP-0045, so repeating the normative keywords > from there seems ill-advised. Ack; I knew there would be a good reason. Thanks. > NEW > | O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost > > Sure. You're really getting into the Shakespearean spirit, eh? I enjoyed the fact that the examples aren't Alice and Bob, verily. Barry From nobody Thu Mar 5 13:54:53 2015 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 2462F1A9085 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 j8YwX47F7k4g for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510631A906E for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhn18 with SMTP id hn18so49971082igb.2 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:49 -0800 (PST) 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=6jcSAIilFZNe83jqB149YQ4eOB+lEptXFrwA0E9rBPk=; b=EC4eyDeDJhGiVXH2vyQ3qjQItKN6Ot1zqRvAH5A7JJuShsU94ks3uyuXfNjhkgmDJu ie/xMoOVf/D9e9nkgz5GYG3fJR04mPtwAGxnk6pjjXXSQXHoKTwhlX5RstvLn+50HdyK nL7uytB7B/mt7XSyd7NlWzR2twbliD01g0V2q5Cqwu1CvlDGOy3//qmCo4RHtY3LtvB6 iZGJDwLPrMeJickyz4giMPCc5lObd809ILLMuPMQKSAxBKBie6XsGDACcKkvH+5Mwrm2 IzeW2/NUHtyTtQ95wzaoJi+szeXeXgnXsnqIKkRPgZ7pCwQe7eWgEDO+7PAj8UrzzKs+ ThPg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzCCkL60NVwNsZqvgw7L+cgIkBiWpBZTkgkAgO//n0zSV7H2RluS817WCjllJz8rtatdcG X-Received: by 10.107.165.68 with SMTP id o65mr6716967ioe.56.1425592488824; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l1sm5792135iod.19.2015.03.05.13.54.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:54:47 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 21:54:52 -0000 On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: >> Hi, Peter, >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. >> >> On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >> to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >> cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html >> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >> here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- >> >> COMMENT: >> >> ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- >> >> >> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for >> that. >> >> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, >> please >> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent >> understanding >> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I >> see raw >> XMPP. >> >> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, >> whether there >> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a >> message >> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >> gateway. >> >> >> Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) >> >> In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end >> > > but that's an extension >> to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for >> session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat >> instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. >> >> >> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say >> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, >> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". > > That sounds reasonable. > > The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I > understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, > only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for > single instant messages). Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im document: Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange "instant messages". The term "instant message" usually refers to a message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended recipient upon request). This document covers single messages only (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest common denominator for IM. Separate documents cover "session-mode" instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat]. In particular, session-mode instant messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end- to-end message delivery. Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 13:54:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3FCA61A906E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243481A9084 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) 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 dzrdCLKfMGAI for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BCB61A8FD2 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so27230340ier.12 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:49 -0800 (PST) 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=6jcSAIilFZNe83jqB149YQ4eOB+lEptXFrwA0E9rBPk=; b=hKBnWExNwOP7UpesmdymlOhF13bAeQoZs7T+pTojlsECBbuouq8Idx/GrzhXaLbe0c NeCJ0hyzL6vy9z6is21LhnoGu8bo9YB+6DGEB3QKpfTgnBT/j4v4VpB2AKZY4R4P+Mpz M3m0nN+IFbb/iSK75JhPv3SZLikr3TTM+1wauH6erFqzF3obixSqnvY8dF0Yc0cU7Y1C YZ+uZx0TmCt44vKq5peVhmqDUo1kxqes8HxcPd18SZdiBGQ19eJdbhscv1oMfICfVetq 3llV4Tdnk/ixxcGdbQymcyKhqt/ejULZLQwNb3SZKutEWuoP4K+5Xc56z9KLdGa79IHQ 4Fsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnS47R7ADmchZpx6m6fahwmVsfZlxYEB/aMbiWSwkSwP5e+zvTkiQKuBrlonEb8/BGJ6We3 X-Received: by 10.107.165.68 with SMTP id o65mr6716967ioe.56.1425592488824; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l1sm5792135iod.19.2015.03.05.13.54.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:54:47 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 21:54:52 -0000 On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: >> Hi, Peter, >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. >> >> On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >> to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >> cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html >> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >> here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- >> >> COMMENT: >> >> ------------------------------__------------------------------__---------- >> >> >> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for >> that. >> >> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, >> please >> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent >> understanding >> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I >> see raw >> XMPP. >> >> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, >> whether there >> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a >> message >> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >> gateway. >> >> >> Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) >> >> In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end >> > > but that's an extension >> to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for >> session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat >> instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. >> >> >> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say >> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, >> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". > > That sounds reasonable. > > The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I > understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, > only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for > single instant messages). Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im document: Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange "instant messages". The term "instant message" usually refers to a message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended recipient upon request). This document covers single messages only (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest common denominator for IM. Separate documents cover "session-mode" instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat]. In particular, session-mode instant messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end- to-end message delivery. Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 14:33:08 2015 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 637601A9074 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:06 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 Psr6s2vYvgan for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A419A1A9073 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by igkb16 with SMTP id b16so50153097igk.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) 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=URVgs64V0VvvTheWQ3IEQT3qAGqDzUDNdPiG1zIvJ5M=; b=bDXmez5kWxXSJq5AAChuvlq0T1q8of0zqwHEflQ98MUYzqDwbj7fKIAQU2FpedW34g 3pt5z255Ani1PwbAKLlb1kTLWmvNZjlOmSv2xv44GDw3o57P8lvBMoMIqX2qjqH/qYui oGyF7CD2jJigFnUWrOVfJuTO1rB9UTgPG6Ovw4bZo0k6axI8GxpDlKeJe07QB3NQSm6T WjIodhXG07WbdI1xFfhWx5NaMf65pp6xRiuLoz3SlvnckaJ1O4a3rITkx64y34oSVnAP Gxhf+TYkPKZGUY/w/zgJEYti/6IILPjnYH/jNciDPllVqcALq1I0rwgh3YuO3ofC4ZG/ IGxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgKgJL8Xdny7IhxrQutV7CDHAEImbk0nGNOgjg4ZbnhIceeHuu4maprBhverHQmu9tgitl X-Received: by 10.42.188.203 with SMTP id db11mr5707223icb.32.1425594784032; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm7849654igh.5.2015.03.05.14.33.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:33:01 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , The IESG References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:06 -0000 On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section >> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >> section 6, seems useful. > > Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with > a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at > F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a > "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as > a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. > Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... Proposed text: The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat session. Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 14:33:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8000E1A9084; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3F91A896C for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:06 -0800 (PST) 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 QCX-oXj2ArtC for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46661A9084 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by igkb16 with SMTP id b16so50023132igk.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) 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=URVgs64V0VvvTheWQ3IEQT3qAGqDzUDNdPiG1zIvJ5M=; b=SYwPGh2jvFSrSH4rZmGhxq9Zn8d1KgpEfan1WlmF5JtTklsS3es5w48Ncbd8ryCyXd wdP/tnWZgOBb6iSxcONC8eSivdUHpxs06sYSmgNF8oxEceEGnMeeKWcRXjljigbKXElJ TmQKQPVVtZ/wNAUQMrjUBW2ZiMaa4TGkRVBk1H2YGCipPHzxoiOZWYJ9/yMyx8ujblWY IxmaUpAUrA7kKZhnb5ZSk+GbmVdNdhpyoIuAkRGeKQtV36vyxIm/bBzQN8TMnFXiCS3d d7Cdgy6dO+gBLTLnoqWj6I5A4d6c6YlHyU3J8J/Jl9WmelfGocWt+uwo/XlYu2MZxgkU P8Ug== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmGB1xcmgaj3XQYMN17qJhVb65/KrZHQFKgeahRhY79l1i8vjzdJXYYBrCWvgeQlvOMYAiI X-Received: by 10.42.188.203 with SMTP id db11mr5707223icb.32.1425594784032; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm7849654igh.5.2015.03.05.14.33.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:33:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:33:01 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , The IESG References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:06 -0000 On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section >> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >> section 6, seems useful. > > Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with > a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at > F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a > "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as > a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. > Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... Proposed text: The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat session. Peter From nobody Thu Mar 5 18:31:28 2015 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 800381A9105; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:25 -0800 (PST) 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 vEnKMcv7VscY; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDFB1A90FD; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023124.28196.14479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-im-13.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:31:25 -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): Instant Messaging Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Avshalom Houri Joe Hildebrand Filename : draft-ietf-stox-im-13.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2015-03-05 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-im-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-im-13 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 Thu Mar 5 18:31:41 2015 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 C72B21A9105; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:27 -0800 (PST) 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 LI99yQ5JXm-H; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422AA1A9100; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023124.28196.76682.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-stox-im-13.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:31:27 -0000 A new version (-13) has been submitted for draft-ietf-stox-im: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-stox-im-13.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-im-13 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. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Thu Mar 5 18:31:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E9CBF1A9106; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:27 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72B21A9105; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:27 -0800 (PST) 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 LI99yQ5JXm-H; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422AA1A9100; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023124.28196.76682.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:31:24 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-stox-im-13.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:31:28 -0000 A new version (-13) has been submitted for draft-ietf-stox-im: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-stox-im-13.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-im-13 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. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Thu Mar 5 18:32:48 2015 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 864D91A90FD; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:43 -0800 (PST) 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 TkJ08uPter-C; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAFC1A9103; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023241.21584.32260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:32:43 -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): One-to-One Text Chat Sessions Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Salvatore Loreto Filename : draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2015-03-05 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant messages in the context of a one-to-one chat session between a user of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and a user of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Specifically for SIP text chat, this document specifies a mapping to the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 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 Thu Mar 5 18:32:49 2015 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 DDAD51A9103; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:44 -0800 (PST) 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 5pGxyszlg0Nl; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E151A9106; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023241.21584.75522.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:32:45 -0000 A new version (-11) has been submitted for draft-ietf-stox-chat: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 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. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Thu Mar 5 18:32:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 155A41A9105; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAD51A9103; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:44 -0800 (PST) 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 5pGxyszlg0Nl; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E151A9106; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023241.21584.75522.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:32:41 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:32:45 -0000 A new version (-11) has been submitted for draft-ietf-stox-chat: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-stox-chat-11.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 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. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Thu Mar 5 18:33:14 2015 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 7996A1A9101; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:33:04 -0800 (PST) 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 QNaoz4YhG-sw; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354AD1A910F; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:32:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150306023251.1748.39111.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:32:51 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-11.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, 06 Mar 2015 02:33:04 -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-11.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2015-03-05 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-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-11 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 Thu Mar 5 18:35:51 2015 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 088721A9100 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:35:49 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 D_jEmz3eeIyx for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:35:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0102D1A9104 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:35:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by igjz20 with SMTP id z20so586401igj.4 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:35:46 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dYPT400d4aslx2U8F9FVW3K6G6TUVNINh5B5r9OHJ5U=; b=RaM7qfygBUiJNj1rYh7hR3O/YcDY4oiTxVTyiwlitcxoJueVdKNhQ0ExFXr8WcsRJG G6NmVIzNcOfJnhUB+vnb6p2S4BQz5H6HY8bx8R23ozXs+wSofgo0PYID49l+gmVwBGsN xkJJKQhmMvZXlBnzfcFX9qYcxvTRADcfESY1F223XzPOd0Wst795sPp1n8gwWRtS0Bv4 SWf7UWgA+tT9uVRiu/Po/gh36OTOAvPSLQvyuDe586aH10VWsWvrcUlHM9IIKVFGC7pr BiegmMbj51wyuCllgnTXKO6pkVHILr80t8Idk3BXIcE2slB5y1H1tJzCCH4I12QKyLPT uU5A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsRKjFFfPoqfarw0fO6Z6NMHl+HSNXHUyAcWx3TlC48uLsaeRJlsFisaaGOm0sZ7JvO8OQ X-Received: by 10.42.12.206 with SMTP id z14mr225039icz.47.1425609346367; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:35:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ht8sm178733igb.0.2015.03.05.18.35.45 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:35:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F91280.2000206@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:35:44 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "stox@ietf.org" , The IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] updated STOX I-Ds 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, 06 Mar 2015 02:35:49 -0000 I've updated the -im, -chat, and -groupchat I-Ds to address IESG feedback. Check the diffs for details: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-im-13 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-chat-11 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-11 Thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Thu Mar 5 20:16:39 2015 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 53ABD1AC42E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 8g5A3tXUe8sF; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD521AC423; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1425615396; x=1457151396; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=01GLHfLigx5/VmZdbIBPIxfeKyalCsh9/TLp9Kuurdo=; b=CiE5grS/yJb/A8CV+0qs6ATtuMM2239BPXpOcYlq8gRuNBchETPVWyri lww6gA6/5MOAJhmJcmxEG+uJnsbSnfjRNxjp8TC+Yli2lMAJmNij1ouFm Zfkb58OLBdU7xrEcx+YIcvjC3o06imiLxEj0MfPlPWIMloUm7JKxf8T5v c=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7731"; a="84334278" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Mar 2015 20:16:35 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,351,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="864648315" Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 05 Mar 2015 20:16:34 -0800 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:33 -0800 Message-ID: <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:16:31 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01E.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.31) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 04:16:38 -0000 On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in >>> section >>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >>> section 6, seems useful. >> >> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with >> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at >> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a >> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as >> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. >> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... > > Proposed text: > > The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the > sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a > message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway > could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the > SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in > Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected > by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat > session. Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an notification at the beginning, and send the with the first message. But either way, the above works. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Thu Mar 5 20:16:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 79C231AC430; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53ABD1AC42E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 8g5A3tXUe8sF; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD521AC423; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1425615396; x=1457151396; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=01GLHfLigx5/VmZdbIBPIxfeKyalCsh9/TLp9Kuurdo=; b=CiE5grS/yJb/A8CV+0qs6ATtuMM2239BPXpOcYlq8gRuNBchETPVWyri lww6gA6/5MOAJhmJcmxEG+uJnsbSnfjRNxjp8TC+Yli2lMAJmNij1ouFm Zfkb58OLBdU7xrEcx+YIcvjC3o06imiLxEj0MfPlPWIMloUm7JKxf8T5v c=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7731"; a="84334278" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Mar 2015 20:16:35 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,351,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="864648315" Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 05 Mar 2015 20:16:34 -0800 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:16:33 -0800 Message-ID: <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:16:31 -0600 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01E.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.31) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 04:16:38 -0000 On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in >>> section >>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >>> section 6, seems useful. >> >> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with >> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at >> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a >> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as >> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. >> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... > > Proposed text: > > The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the > sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a > message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway > could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the > SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in > Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected > by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat > session. Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an notification at the beginning, and send the with the first message. But either way, the above works. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Mar 6 01:20:59 2015 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 BE9461A9075; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nmDcTa4XsAJN; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D931A9074; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30B0D41295; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:14 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:47:09 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:20:57 -0800 Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 05 Mar 2015 21:47:16 -0000 On 3/4/15 4:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/3/15 1:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made >> work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work >> here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit >> how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D, >> just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can >> find.) > > Yes, we might do that in all three of these specs (or, as Barry > suggests, mention it in the -im spec and point there from the others). Here is proposed / updated text for the -im document, to which we can point from the -chat document: This document specifies methods for exchanging "page-mode" instant messages through a gateway that translates between SIP and XMPP, and [I-D.ietf-stox-chat] specifies such methods for "session-mode" instant messaging between MSRP and XMPP. Such a gateway MUST be compliant with the minimum security requirements of the textual chat protocols for which it translates (i.e., SIP or MSRP and XMPP). The addition of gateways to the security model of instant messaging specified in [RFC2779] introduces some new risks. In particular, end-to-end security properties (especially confidentiality and integrity) between instant messaging clients that interface through a gateway can be provided only if common formats are supported. Specification of those common formats is out of scope for this document. For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented. A more widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR]. Peter From nobody Fri Mar 6 01:21:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E7CBD1A90A4; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE57D1A90A2 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 UOsNMFaFUnkk for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 791381A909F for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]:61357) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YTgiQ-00038T-Tb for draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723FD2CEC5; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:08:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWm76SLKOxEY; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:08:53 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137572CEC1; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:08:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E5FA4FE-CB89-418F-897C-4407CCEB0389"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <54F75ECC.8020703@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:08:53 +0200 Message-Id: <4732CD06-18AD-4D9D-A2FB-8F494141533D@piuha.net> References: <201503041556.t24FuKL8027801@givry.fdupont.fr> <54F75ECC.8020703@gmail.com> To: Francis Dupont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.234.218.130 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jari.arkko@piuha.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org Resent-Message-Id: <20150306010611.791381A909F@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: jari.arkko@piuha.net Archived-At: Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:20:57 -0800 Cc: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-stox-im-12.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, 06 Mar 2015 01:06:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8E5FA4FE-CB89-418F-897C-4407CCEB0389 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for your review, Francis. Jari --Apple-Mail=_8E5FA4FE-CB89-418F-897C-4407CCEB0389 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU+EdVAAoJEM80gCTQU46qH7sP/i3aTRQORaNB+TSbYV+9YEQT MrQvWBj1G0Od96bolE1fYryNQ56UjxLBvQB9iuuPTan4NXC23/RybzcE9ZzOTvHu atgWJsxcLlUf2zmnJKCTKFb1f5lZdtlMMkXcND3LVS294igjVo8cB9OycWvG18kQ VqkNqqZ8SZDYT9k0vm32ap9m1LUk21+usg0tYmdHDex4Fd16ObK27O2adtzf5zmT 5FWgxPDgUQEn1LsfivPEtffVGepWNSYma0T86MtbroaSGaYQeUXrxY6fsh0FKNUM SmelTyktGhF7UMT+knEP26P8yQqFKAvB326KV+lQzAROygu22ISdZjKrqJ4kOOfe VOkgjKBkzohATGgEz6KqjLqAikTu2sdSceDDTR9H0StEEmQ/FRtWf/f/nZqVcjGy WMtev5pFghtnBjpr9LAMZ9jh8t0GykNdm2krmEI63opGb1Us0Nj93WgP6RCg0l3B jYJEzso9a0WMV4xEWwVsSPKlI7y+Yfs1XYnGTh25lEwEoA0cstfvVl1Ke9Pr4oM+ bpiAq7kSQds1XHHMvtSL7EAjQDNPsThw6aRWd1caF3fb9gEFpao0vJnzEY6yNSyu ZBZwdbDvQnWpr05jaBLWeVzH/rnuugv876wASmI5XJgiM0KNBG4zyVTi8fjstGQ7 q4EH8SUfcUn1CexpCoPe =1D0d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8E5FA4FE-CB89-418F-897C-4407CCEB0389-- From nobody Fri Mar 6 01:21:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id ED0AA1A909F; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1461A90A3 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 48e_f39OyF2D for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF5501A90A0 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]:61358) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YTgiQ-00038R-Sx for draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@tools.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E1E2CEB0; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:07:48 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiOdf24AFItp; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:07:47 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E9D2CD0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:07:47 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4BE84DFE-5237-4028-97E3-0CCF6E069B2E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <54E7C983.8010900@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:07:47 +0200 Message-Id: <0822C520-912B-475B-B88F-5EB20495BA2C@piuha.net> References: <54E7C983.8010900@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.234.218.130 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jari.arkko@piuha.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Resent-Message-Id: <20150306010611.AF5501A90A0@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:06:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: jari.arkko@piuha.net Archived-At: Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:20:57 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [Stox] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-stox-chat-10 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, 06 Mar 2015 01:06:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4BE84DFE-5237-4028-97E3-0CCF6E069B2E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Brian: thank you On 21 Feb 2015, at 01:55, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . >=20 > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-stox-chat-10.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2015-02-21 > IETF LC End Date: 2015-03-02 > IESG Telechat date: 2015-03-05 >=20 > Summary: Ready > -------- >=20 > Comment: > -------- >=20 > This is a well-written document, even for one who knows nothing > of XMPP or MSRP details. It strongly reminds me of the days when > we had to build file transfer protocol gateways between FTP, > FTAM and various proprietary protocols - the main problem was > mapping non-congruent state machines into one another. The current > draft has an amusing example: "idle" legitimately maps to "active". > I expect that full deployment will reveal issues that haven't been > noticed yet, so I also expect to see this document back for > revisions in a few years. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art --Apple-Mail=_4BE84DFE-5237-4028-97E3-0CCF6E069B2E 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU+EcTAAoJEM80gCTQU46qeLgP/jC5+QPfq/PFs8UZTsVX0+Qw kIk/d+7qYXrGVMcbP1F2ZgqAshXFXMKStyQteZ2qBcMKn/008A2Y2/cFTL4GdVco 98BH4wJGmFXDd08Wr8tFf9bmkTOZf/qBChVxGmkbHQY7OtpvEkjeJk/rD542tt1W bSODgZ3pKA+d6UJqjBzHL61PW9agYGFxpKdqLORGVUiQuvIhA+CToWJGPgamm/Sl LDr2ukEoM2r+F5++Fj4fePetbbemA82qZw+tFf0R6LawLctNWKrOHLpw/iU28okV PVITZi9RgxdaqL/26lN8jywEXaQQI5aS+qjsm46XlSgsLgguFJz8Kxa5U8p6P70U C46G82pxE+upDtcsF8Hc2Ha/wmTm9eFXdea5dO6/FG35l31mDI6axI8sf18uwIbm JLIE9KsgeiAYXWtZLGYAqdXmkn1H0J0ZHWK1V30k+W86JZWriAIKSW3jPAz0cqTc cysyUG+VkxmJ0wpLmQ+moW9/aqajtJzXTLT7OQVBGKgOBj7tAnm4EA+2Ft5z+Wiz F2gDoLmJM8w1FTtx5OKMS0YN9k9fQ8mSBxuec2chDgI6N3Gfk+WgpKb4Zh2PEStd 9fTWlbhvrDUebdFUVTdrVkz7zpWZRM904aH8WqCX8H8WaNJx8IXX0+W+phjCIXlF Rp7p384zwAjBOVYvtGd9 =rHGi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4BE84DFE-5237-4028-97E3-0CCF6E069B2E-- From nobody Fri Mar 6 02:44:39 2015 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 1530D1A01F9; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 6f6x5bSuOJNI; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985E51A07BC; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58689BEAF; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYc7kI5spzFa; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2547CBE7D; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:24 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre , Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:36 -0000 On 05/03/15 21:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and > [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented. A more > widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable > end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR]. I like that but just to check - what you're calling IM here does work with OTR, right? OTR requires an e2e roundtrip and IM otherwise seemed to be more fire-and-forget, at least e2e. So is there a possible terminology glitch? Put another way - I know that OTR will work, but there'll now be a few messages at least to do the handshake and not just the one, so are we actually doing a chat session and not an IM at that point? Cheers, S. From nobody Fri Mar 6 02:44:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 389E11A0398; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1530D1A01F9; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 6f6x5bSuOJNI; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985E51A07BC; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58689BEAF; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYc7kI5spzFa; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2547CBE7D; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:24 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre , Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:36 -0000 On 05/03/15 21:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and > [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented. A more > widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable > end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR]. I like that but just to check - what you're calling IM here does work with OTR, right? OTR requires an e2e roundtrip and IM otherwise seemed to be more fire-and-forget, at least e2e. So is there a possible terminology glitch? Put another way - I know that OTR will work, but there'll now be a few messages at least to do the handshake and not just the one, so are we actually doing a chat session and not an IM at that point? Cheers, S. From nobody Fri Mar 6 08:58:46 2015 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 4D7D11ACF6C for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:45 -0800 (PST) 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 xVJMdnyXsaj1 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 575B31ACEDB for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by igal13 with SMTP id l13so5365993iga.0 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) 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=KU62UJbAaFnJcM4cZ3Ji0F15gq8odoFr7VNfr9tbIic=; b=k+QbL4zy0bPMhDOUeCUQmdvm7//5FK5NQJuvM/CenaLwMZNfmjvDt1IBLv055Y1tJE FakSDCzLoj6yEFYK2/V+QeP2ad73siDNeO6z0zNpszRQe5Yc7jD8sCixMmIzWy+5S8Cp jARL2F2x+Z3a77apHK7uo4oZlhOO9PjVK3JreCaPhjpEAE88AndGmqZfOyCJk4OgV8Fi +B5CjHW5qPnTMcQcut5+13M6YviCDZIQrv+kSbw24IeT6PRM9Tey2XleJMQL89K+CyXt 0ddIYwucpkWRh4sUMPz4CFIt6XcUGiuMnPf4M9GqI8fNXkD6cqvykr+8SLrCShojt25W IiRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSvGM/4U/GEiHMxWZAIlBJZse+V0RnFWEKJr9cWE2ySB1e9C7GqF8Z7gmEkJ7mAJOC71hr X-Received: by 10.50.66.235 with SMTP id i11mr29633753igt.40.1425661108795; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 130sm7277298ioz.10.2015.03.06.08.58.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F9DCB3.3090609@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:58:27 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 16:58:45 -0000 On 3/6/15 3:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 05/03/15 21:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and >> [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented. A more >> widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable >> end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR]. > > I like that but just to check - what you're calling IM here > does work with OTR, right? OTR requires an e2e roundtrip and > IM otherwise seemed to be more fire-and-forget, at least e2e. > So is there a possible terminology glitch? > > Put another way - I know that OTR will work, but there'll now > be a few messages at least to do the handshake and not just > the one, so are we actually doing a chat session and not an > IM at that point? OTR doesn't care about the underlying messaging technology, since it treats them all as dumb transports. So yes, in OTR terms I suppose you'd say there is a session of some kind, but in SIP / RFC 3428 terms it's just a series of single instant messages ("page mode" IM), not a formally negotiated chat session ("session mode" IM) as happens in MSRP / RFC 4975. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Fri Mar 6 08:58:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5E0571ACF6C; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5621ACEEC for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:47 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 vBhyMOOoacAT for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FBCE1ACEDC for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so87016790iec.0 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) 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=KU62UJbAaFnJcM4cZ3Ji0F15gq8odoFr7VNfr9tbIic=; b=atvtB6P68gzqUlL/FJIGojL3opc5WjwF5zYFbk9If3NJ1h3MwuSq7C/ZTlrx1fGPTS /7+R6LIEFT/Q8uPyMkiibOaUxP4NVK+dVTnN75tWYv7RtLYFnUrNEAcOW82pNIcaH2Qp c4fA54zXrLz0WzgN2AUZkzwO217yX9PAQ12Yk9MGGA5mMTZIbJs7IJjTrKU4ZxBcaAkB zLW0RIaY70jDWKNIBXuUWMsCer+zT5TFvUuh5f0DnqmgkuXRZdExqpaTwXlp5jRk9Pqu z452nZKSbQY6RA8WM7ovPebj4RBjhyIY/RLwbaglgkuKxPxZUfMRmVPNT/7GZBVZnlN7 PUBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnn1J7IneiEEZqR+tkPmNFIUqaIwZw75KFuDAYBT/mmF9Sf4tBtWikdCx+iH4wIMqVK7nGJ X-Received: by 10.50.66.235 with SMTP id i11mr29633753igt.40.1425661108795; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 130sm7277298ioz.10.2015.03.06.08.58.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F9DCB3.3090609@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:58:27 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 16:58:47 -0000 On 3/6/15 3:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 05/03/15 21:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and >> [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented. A more >> widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable >> end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR]. > > I like that but just to check - what you're calling IM here > does work with OTR, right? OTR requires an e2e roundtrip and > IM otherwise seemed to be more fire-and-forget, at least e2e. > So is there a possible terminology glitch? > > Put another way - I know that OTR will work, but there'll now > be a few messages at least to do the handshake and not just > the one, so are we actually doing a chat session and not an > IM at that point? OTR doesn't care about the underlying messaging technology, since it treats them all as dumb transports. So yes, in OTR terms I suppose you'd say there is a session of some kind, but in SIP / RFC 3428 terms it's just a series of single instant messages ("page mode" IM), not a formally negotiated chat session ("session mode" IM) as happens in MSRP / RFC 4975. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Fri Mar 6 09:15:38 2015 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 6E5A41A19FE for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:36 -0800 (PST) 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 uwcphDX4gtw8 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8C21A09C9 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so19272429iec.10 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:06 -0800 (PST) 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=8GJccejjTvVVGEDDoj7O+rgUXI6TZrGowJqeVo0LWLI=; b=Raiiowz2z5anFoKqFBRA1IvY3EcXHjyTEDYWrdcHzeraBT/tUk8QtyGm4i9GrfETbC Hyb9yhra6qMn9wM10qZpfuhSWXopRrmeCn05bcBw1k+envIqAVH8RyznRK6/j6dPEBJz sVItQQhUaPpPA8mHvnbBwt0K+NbCXd0yYCwULD/JRWBskNUPvx8/eYgJzCVc5sGCuL5Z 8btpWh1JOkzuJSHMGt/VkVbieZypJ+PdWsun7ri5eWHlA86xrRmifAjKEFKZZi+auyHA IbJwEAMS2qbO7l5u8knC7WCwhA5EPhR6jxXyKMGQQLmxUr6QyZvV9JjCxiD5nkNF/NWs owoA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFQA0uROpgUissr9ZXMg+KC2eR4n6WwFgtFpwFQOQHlu/rDw3ync5/K0Gtj5Tl/J9w/JC7 X-Received: by 10.43.59.134 with SMTP id wo6mr11237442icb.97.1425662106662; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i20sm1232854igh.16.2015.03.06.09.15.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F9E098.60301@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:15:04 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 17:15:36 -0000 On 3/5/15 9:16 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >>> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in >>>> section >>>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >>>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >>>> section 6, seems useful. >>> >>> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with >>> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at >>> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a >>> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as >>> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. >>> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... >> >> Proposed text: >> >> The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the >> sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a >> message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway >> could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the >> SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in >> Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected >> by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat >> session. > > Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an > notification at the beginning, and send the with > the first message. That feels weird. :-) > But either way, the above works. Super. Peter From nobody Fri Mar 6 09:15:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B07331A1A2E; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FE51A19FE for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:37 -0800 (PST) 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=unavailable 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 OqdhI9GzOd_7 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 309981A1A63 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so33671079ier.13 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:06 -0800 (PST) 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=8GJccejjTvVVGEDDoj7O+rgUXI6TZrGowJqeVo0LWLI=; b=WKi5WIRLOD6n55gncogUfVi02txOfOBEQXfI/D91nhw0mBURRPEACVh8f1ZjQ+wS9+ h44M1iNnEVrmG/Y2WnLspdJJSY7lXyUTIaxuGvH31LShUeG70FKEZV1pJHuXzWKhrDCN LRCJWF17b+K4ZELroS7bik1FVaTVZmNMqKmRRjPINsStcuTxJvnTjic9gc/sILL9Z5wf Rs4VwZuFU3xbFRbioGeL/2vMpEgDqf7rSVZTTw1pbpRgS4mf+4EeTEVvnX37v95tlg5y XeiQF2A5I+klN69mUFKAK9TgOqEpHsMrlSmrzlCSQJRkkkcz+11lku7FVeL7JBrpEvCS /A7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmeOM1KYfpIkQQywKN+qWOdLGuZpyprPhHXukfRiRwFG34yFq3PzeZ8yBYOBR6ssittIDKK X-Received: by 10.43.59.134 with SMTP id wo6mr11237442icb.97.1425662106662; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i20sm1232854igh.16.2015.03.06.09.15.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:15:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F9E098.60301@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:15:04 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick References: <20150304173650.13446.53810.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79CF9.2000001@andyet.net> <54F8D99D.3040705@andyet.net> <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <54F92A1F.9070009@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 17:15:37 -0000 On 3/5/15 9:16 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >>> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: >>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in >>>> section >>>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or >>>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in >>>> section 6, seems useful. >>> >>> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, is sent along with >>> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at >>> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a >>> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as >>> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. >>> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable... >> >> Proposed text: >> >> The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the >> sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a >> message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway >> could thus send an notification to the XMPP user when the >> SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in >> Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected >> by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat >> session. > > Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an > notification at the beginning, and send the with > the first message. That feels weird. :-) > But either way, the above works. Super. Peter From nobody Fri Mar 6 12:33:37 2015 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 2EB811A7026; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NkcgF6Ap0JAQ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4762F1A7003; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so37055364lbv.8; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aVhZrz2wGOOHXM7r7w3GWe3LdOIhLwfBJp5l6I7gznw=; b=sCkzaNlCZjudxLL0pCXzbMl61LGz//UPYtrk8+4vnSLU/qvCWGCCqi2jcjCg3dZysJ QIFjB+eI0K3UeH9w0B48myhfJ50uVlF7MF+2Nyrb05Pdx3iG8glcKvtQLGwZ/vzRHjzo tJsk4MIYQg0Vlbe1h7SOZAhm93yDfzmfgpbflETXHvwAm+huqEySr4CBoSgFde0zMm81 O8N4C62ECUgfMJEFzV8UqRUtcpvJWaaPtyV/jcSUQqX4pJh9s28n8Qvwo2J7TtDtrQVE gZ26s2Syqj2jRczllhbNJivj+cAnwwSvuCFLY0nekEChBZkCr5wN3KPxdFuvWWRjb/E5 czmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.162.232 with SMTP id yd8mr14417156lbb.41.1425674008727; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.22.100 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:33:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 20:33:33 -0000 --089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Peter, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: >> >>> Hi, Peter, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. >>> >>> On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> >>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >>> to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >>> cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html >>> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >>> here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >>> --__---------- >>> >>> COMMENT: >>> >>> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >>> --__---------- >>> >>> >>> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for >>> that. >>> >>> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, >>> please >>> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent >>> understanding >>> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I >>> see raw >>> XMPP. >>> >>> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, >>> whether there >>> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a >>> message >>> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >>> gateway. >>> >>> >>> Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) >>> >>> In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end >>> >> > but that's an extension >>> to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for >>> session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat >>> instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. >>> >>> >>> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say >>> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, >>> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". >>> >> >> That sounds reasonable. >> >> The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I >> understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, >> only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for >> single instant messages). >> > > Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im > document: > > Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange > "instant messages". The term "instant message" usually refers to a > message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time > (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended > recipient upon request). This document covers single messages only > (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest > common denominator for IM. Separate documents cover "session-mode" > instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions > [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions > [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat]. In particular, session-mode instant > messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode > instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end- > to-end message delivery. > That's exactly the kind of edit I was hoping for. Thanks! Spencer --089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@a= ndyet.net> wrote:
On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &am= p;yet wrote:
On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
<peter@andyet.net<= /a> <mailto:peter@= andyet.net>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballo= t position for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 When responding, please keep the subject line i= ntact and reply
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 to all
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 email addresses included in the To and CC lines= . (Feel free to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cut this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 introductory paragraph, however.)


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Please refer to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__<= /u>statement/discuss-criteria.__html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COM= MENT positions.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The document, along with other ballot positions= , can be found
here:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/__d= oc/draft-ietf-stox-im/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-ietf-stox-im/>




------------------------------__-----------------------------= -__----------

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 COMMENT:

------------------------------__-----------------------------= -__----------


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I'm glad to see these specifications moving= forward. Thanks for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questio= ns. As prologue,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 please
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, = an indecent
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 understanding
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehen= dingly when I
see raw
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 XMPP.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 It did not jump out at me when reading this spe= cification,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 whether there
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 is any assurance to a sender on one side of the= gateway that a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 message
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 was delivered successfully to a receiver on the= other side of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 gateway.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end= -to-end
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/__xep-0184.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html>> b= ut that's an extension
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism fo= r
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox= -chat
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 instead of draft-ietf-stox-im.


I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say
something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failu= re,
and if you need that, you want to use chat instead".

That sounds reasonable.

The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP,=
only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for single instant messages).

Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im documen= t:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchan= ge
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"instant messages".=C2=A0 The term "instant mes= sage" usually refers to a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0message sent between two entities for delivery in close to rea= l time
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the int= ended
=C2=A0 =C2=A0recipient upon request).=C2=A0 This document covers single mes= sages only
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they= form the lowest
=C2=A0 =C2=A0common denominator for IM.=C2=A0 Separate documents cover &quo= t;session-mode"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat].=C2=A0 In particular, session-mode i= nstant
=C2=A0 =C2=A0messaging supports several features that are not part of page-= mode
=C2=A0 =C2=A0instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regardi= ng end-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to-end message delivery.

T= hat's exactly the kind of edit I was hoping for. Thanks!

=
Spencer=C2=A0

--089e01184bbadb17060510a49898-- From nobody Fri Mar 6 12:33:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 59EDB1A702B; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB811A7026; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NkcgF6Ap0JAQ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4762F1A7003; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so37055364lbv.8; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aVhZrz2wGOOHXM7r7w3GWe3LdOIhLwfBJp5l6I7gznw=; b=sCkzaNlCZjudxLL0pCXzbMl61LGz//UPYtrk8+4vnSLU/qvCWGCCqi2jcjCg3dZysJ QIFjB+eI0K3UeH9w0B48myhfJ50uVlF7MF+2Nyrb05Pdx3iG8glcKvtQLGwZ/vzRHjzo tJsk4MIYQg0Vlbe1h7SOZAhm93yDfzmfgpbflETXHvwAm+huqEySr4CBoSgFde0zMm81 O8N4C62ECUgfMJEFzV8UqRUtcpvJWaaPtyV/jcSUQqX4pJh9s28n8Qvwo2J7TtDtrQVE gZ26s2Syqj2jRczllhbNJivj+cAnwwSvuCFLY0nekEChBZkCr5wN3KPxdFuvWWRjb/E5 czmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.162.232 with SMTP id yd8mr14417156lbb.41.1425674008727; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.22.100 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:33:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG , stox-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT) 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, 06 Mar 2015 20:33:33 -0000 --089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Peter, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: >> >>> Hi, Peter, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline. >>> >>> On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> >>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >>> to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >>> cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html >>> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >>> here: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >>> --__---------- >>> >>> COMMENT: >>> >>> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >>> --__---------- >>> >>> >>> I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for >>> that. >>> >>> I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, >>> please >>> remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent >>> understanding >>> of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I >>> see raw >>> XMPP. >>> >>> It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, >>> whether there >>> is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a >>> message >>> was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the >>> gateway. >>> >>> >>> Assurance is a slippery thing. :-) >>> >>> In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end >>> >> > but that's an extension >>> to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for >>> session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat >>> instead of draft-ietf-stox-im. >>> >>> >>> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say >>> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure, >>> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead". >>> >> >> That sounds reasonable. >> >> The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I >> understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP, >> only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for >> single instant messages). >> > > Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im > document: > > Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange > "instant messages". The term "instant message" usually refers to a > message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time > (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended > recipient upon request). This document covers single messages only > (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest > common denominator for IM. Separate documents cover "session-mode" > instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions > [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions > [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat]. In particular, session-mode instant > messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode > instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end- > to-end message delivery. > That's exactly the kind of edit I was hoping for. Thanks! Spencer --089e01184bbadb17060510a49898 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@a= ndyet.net> wrote:
On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &am= p;yet wrote:
On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
<peter@andyet.net<= /a> <mailto:peter@= andyet.net>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballo= t position for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 When responding, please keep the subject line i= ntact and reply
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 to all
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 email addresses included in the To and CC lines= . (Feel free to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cut this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 introductory paragraph, however.)


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Please refer to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__<= /u>statement/discuss-criteria.__html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COM= MENT positions.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The document, along with other ballot positions= , can be found
here:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://datatracker.ietf.org/__d= oc/draft-ietf-stox-im/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-ietf-stox-im/>




------------------------------__-----------------------------= -__----------

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 COMMENT:

------------------------------__-----------------------------= -__----------


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I'm glad to see these specifications moving= forward. Thanks for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questio= ns. As prologue,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 please
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, = an indecent
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 understanding
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehen= dingly when I
see raw
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 XMPP.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 It did not jump out at me when reading this spe= cification,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 whether there
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 is any assurance to a sender on one side of the= gateway that a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 message
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 was delivered successfully to a receiver on the= other side of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 gateway.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end= -to-end
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/__xep-0184.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html>> b= ut that's an extension
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism fo= r
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox= -chat
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 instead of draft-ietf-stox-im.


I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say
something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failu= re,
and if you need that, you want to use chat instead".

That sounds reasonable.

The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP,=
only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for single instant messages).

Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im documen= t:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchan= ge
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"instant messages".=C2=A0 The term "instant mes= sage" usually refers to a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0message sent between two entities for delivery in close to rea= l time
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the int= ended
=C2=A0 =C2=A0recipient upon request).=C2=A0 This document covers single mes= sages only
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they= form the lowest
=C2=A0 =C2=A0common denominator for IM.=C2=A0 Separate documents cover &quo= t;session-mode"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat].=C2=A0 In particular, session-mode i= nstant
=C2=A0 =C2=A0messaging supports several features that are not part of page-= mode
=C2=A0 =C2=A0instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regardi= ng end-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to-end message delivery.

T= hat's exactly the kind of edit I was hoping for. Thanks!

=
Spencer=C2=A0

--089e01184bbadb17060510a49898-- From nobody Mon Mar 9 12:17:58 2015 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 D167E1ABD3A; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:17:55 -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 rycQI4tqRk80; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3389A1ABD3D; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:17:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150309191737.2376.621.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:17:37 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-media-05.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: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:17:56 -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): Media Sessions Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Saul Ibarra Emil Ivov Filename : draft-ietf-stox-media-05.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2015-03-09 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for use by gateways that enable the exchange of media signaling messages between systems that implement the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and systems that implement the Jingle extensions to the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-media/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-media-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-media-05 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 Mon Mar 9 14:14:00 2015 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 05FB71A916B for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:13:59 -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 ghS3oFxjF675 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F861ACD75 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so13939422ier.0 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:13:27 -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=1S83tNMq3v0ldtfk1avIl5fJxG2f/9qkBAQAd9NbIjk=; b=IUKctVHuKRo5dlHGG8c3yUouOc0D03WFMbbrevIW0LssISyOqBNpCQb5THutcGgLTg N5QxIr4aCHKjDe6eB7ZD//stYZpE3s4h0ix587D2Q/1uRaKY+Mi4svH+Nd+W/3YP+eG5 yuAb1y3dnegVmSzMnBaWLzBqbePIFpry63x9bKnqcZmDovmd2gRgBzAtMkat5NfHkoXD zdv/lZ67LmFv5Kbi65VEhivTtifIqcCo7RqXxCy/sAo8P0KYWb01cHknGUJIR1HT+0Ff IMJB1vfMR3z8dbf2SQckMe4wr/SMkBseSenk3yH+VVurTskE5k8Bo11rAj68mYlFimqk eXNw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlBYaVSahmNQpfRHXx2mZQNGDpRxGPlSms7Yg6hsIlFpXC7Bb+NtB9SkpEwt3LSQd96V1JC X-Received: by 10.42.67.76 with SMTP id s12mr30635993ici.53.1425935607222; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:13:27 -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 130sm12834937ioz.10.2015.03.09.14.13.26 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54FE0CF9.4090902@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:13:29 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lennox References: <26E25338-948C-43FA-A0AE-880BD1CB49B0@vidyo.com> <532A645A.3080605@stpeter.im> <5331BED1.3070202@jitsi.org> <5331FF4D.8010900@stpeter.im> <54ED51AF.5040403@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54ED51AF.5040403@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "stox@ietf.org" , Emil Ivov , =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= Subject: Re: [Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice? 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, 09 Mar 2015 21:13:59 -0000 On 2/24/15 9:38 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/26/14 9:50 AM, Jonathan Lennox wrote: >> >> On Mar 25, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre > > wrote: >> >>> On 3/25/14, 12:03 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Emil Ivov >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 25.03.14, 15:15, Jonathan Lennox wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It occurred to me that SIP has a way of saying "do ICE, or >>>>>>>>> fail the call": putting a "Require: ice" SIP option tag >>>>>>>>> (from RFC 5768) in the SIP INVITE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should we recommend this? It clearly has the right >>>>>>>>> semantics, and will prevent interop failure when a non-ICE >>>>>>>>> SIP endpoint answers a XEP-176 Jingle call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Theoretically that makes sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed. Maybe a gateway could do ICE on behalf of the non-ICE >>>>>>> capable endpoint, so can we say this is implementation specific >>>>>>> and thus add a MAY to it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, of course. I was talking about how you’d want to handle a >>>>>> signaling-only gateway. >>>>> >>>>> There's also "XEP-0177: Jingle Raw UDP Transport Method" which is >>>>> basically equivalent to ICE-less SIP. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I don't mind mandating ICE at all. >>>> >>>> Right, but there’s no way for a Jingle client to offer a choice >>>> between XEP-176 and XEP-177, whereas RFC 5245 requires that both ICE >>>> and fallback non-ICE be supported. >>> >>> Well, an XMPP initiator would not offer the ice-udp transport method >>> if the responder didn't advertise support via XMPP service discovery >>> (i.e., only advertised support for raw-udp). So, in general, fallback >>> shouldn't really be necessary. However, we have defined a protocol >>> flow for it just in case: >>> >>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0176.html#fallback >> >> The problem with that flow is the statement "Based on capabilities >> information, the gateway knows that the SIP endpoint does not support >> ICE”. Unfortunately, SIP doesn’t really have any workable way of >> providing capabilities information, which is why RFC 5245 (and so much >> of the rest of SIP) is single-exchange fallback. True. >> An alternative flow is possible, where you only send the >> transport-replace on the Jingle side if the SIP answer indicates no ICE >> support, and then send a SIP re-INVITE with the addresses in the >> transport-accept. It’ll result a fairly substantial post-answer delay >> before the media will get through, though. >> >> Here’s a sketch: >> >> Romeo Gateway Juliet >> | | | >> | session-initiate | | >> | (audio definition) | | >> |------------------------>| | >> | ack | | >> |<------------------------| SIP INVITE (ICE) | >> | |------------------------>| >> | transport-replace | 200 OK (Raw UDP) | >> | (Raw UDP) |<------------------------| >> |<------------------------| | >> | ack | | >> |------------------------>| | >> | transport-accept | | >> |------------------------>| | >> | ack | | >> |<------------------------| SIP INVITE (Raw UDP) | >> | |------------------------>| >> | | 200 OK (Raw UDP) | >> | session-accept |<------------------------| >> |<------------------------| | >> | ack | | >> |------------------------>| | >> | MEDIA SESSION | >> |<=================================================>| >> | | | >> > > That seems reasonable but I'll give it more thought soon. > >> This flow also relies on the SIP side not changing its local IP address >> and port in response to a re-INVITE with a changed address, or the XMPP >> side not changing its in response to a transport-replace maintaining raw >> UDP; otherwise, the gateway can get into an infinite >> re-INVITE/transport-replace loop. > > Yes, we'll want to document those possibilities. We didn't get to that yet because of the submission deadline, but the authors will discuss the remaining open issues soon (and I for one plan to do a complete review of the document and probably add a bunch of examples and call flows). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Fri Mar 13 09:04:10 2015 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 9A6B41A8783 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.311 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_22=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 MwwVf8S3JWJd for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BF01A87EA for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:04:01 -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 BF55F16DC6B3 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:03:59 +0100 (CET) From: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:04:03 +0100 To: stox@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Subject: [Stox] My review on draft-ietf-stox-7284bis 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, 13 Mar 2015 16:04:08 -0000 Hi Peter and all! So, review time! Sec 4.2.1 Not sure if this was discussed (memory is fuzzy right now), but that = diagram feels a bit odd. The SIP Server + S2X gateway entity gets SIP = traffic but responds with XMPP replies. In practice, there would only be = a X2S entity in that scenario, because the subscription started on the = XMPP side. The X2S gateway would do the translation, and the SIP server = knows nothing about XMPP. Example 2: Maybe add a To header?=20 Example 4: =46rom and To tags don=92t match those of the SUBSCRIBE / 200 OK, but = the CallID does. Section 4..2.3 Same as above, looks weird that the S2X gateway generated the XMPP = response without ever getting the request. Example 8: The SUBSCRIBE needs to be in-dialog, so =46rom and To tags need to = match, and so does the Call-ID. Also the CSeq would need to be higher. = Maybe put 100, thus implying that there have been a bunch of NOTIFY = requests already. Section 4.3.1 Opposite of my 2 other comments :-) Maybe I=92m super confused today or = we can have a quick chat / call next week to go over it? Example 10: Missing To header Example 14: Call-ID missmatch Example 16: The SUBSCRIBE must be in-dialog, same problem as Example 8. Section 4.3.3 Point 2 it=92s not very clear to me, upon receiving the SUBSCRIBE = request with Expires 0, there is no need to send it again. Example 18: Maybe we need to mention that the XMPP resource can contain unicode and = xs:ID is ASCII only? Point 5: To terminate the subscription from the notifier side, a NOTIFY = with Subscription-State: terminated is sent, not a SUBSCRIBE with = Expires 0, that is used from the subscriber side. Example 22: A presence probe was a one-off presence request, right? If so, the CSeq = should be 1, since this would be a new dialog. Also, missing To header. Example 23: Same as above. That=92s all I got! :-) -- Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9 AG Projects From nobody Tue Mar 17 15:36:25 2015 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 413211A1BBD for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2DTlAmdzAvB4 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30C21A1BB3 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iegc3 with SMTP id c3so24282562ieg.3 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -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=u1Iis2lh4z1i+ZeHhKLgUf5hI3GUQCEzRR55o3bqg7c=; b=fDEUsuGRGz19sHNskAlpI9b5Ekqcr8uR8SWuOsPAJxqMUqqmdiINDzn6WTPraQrRj2 7gNehwTj1IwpOw1eLgbzzfBqCrxhQkSSefkFxF/hXrfj5rGcHxJgJBFlCzgt0kYDLOSn VacgvG57cmSuqWceSJK/v4fiE++ilhZpPvCgK2jNcONIw4JWuzZniJy2dpm/LTe1ktd3 Ss7ClhjxbRZzTbdYVTCVNlafwGSzGBaM64JNYyUTO8dv61ZUWx58uN5/CBA7SUJeZCJl G3hT59vyOAfTRRF0OIztDED95cdMLtC8NnwKW5JFVt3e9PFpoe9lcrq96Njp6ucPs0Ei 9eSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn72Mp2BXjLuz+5dwpbGe6gsMR5oWZRFMDibNz4D1bPrVA9nyNPmSUtGQK6XXcqye5C1YDg X-Received: by 10.107.128.226 with SMTP id k95mr37310963ioi.73.1426631781310; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -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 x10sm294997igl.13.2015.03.17.15.36.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5508AC63.7020405@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:36:19 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= , stox@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Stox] My review on draft-ietf-stox-7284bis 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, 17 Mar 2015 22:36:23 -0000 Hi Saúl, thanks for the review. On 3/13/15 10:04 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > Hi Peter and all! > > So, review time! > > Sec 4.2.1 > > Not sure if this was discussed (memory is fuzzy right now), but that > diagram feels a bit odd. The SIP Server + S2X gateway entity gets SIP > traffic but responds with XMPP replies. In practice, there would only > be a X2S entity in that scenario, because the subscription started on > the XMPP side. The X2S gateway would do the translation, and the SIP > server knows nothing about XMPP. Yes, I think that makes more sense and will adjust the diagrams and flows accordingly. > Example 2: > > Maybe add a To header? Yes. > Example 4: > > From and To tags don’t match those of the SUBSCRIBE / 200 OK, but the > CallID does. Good catch - the From and To need to be consistent. > Section 4..2.3 > > Same as above, looks weird that the S2X gateway generated the XMPP > response without ever getting the request. Agreed. > Example 8: > > The SUBSCRIBE needs to be in-dialog, so From and To tags need to > match, and so does the Call-ID. Also the CSeq would need to be > higher. Maybe put 100, thus implying that there have been a bunch of > NOTIFY requests already. WFM. > Section 4.3.1 > > Opposite of my 2 other comments :-) Maybe I’m super confused today or > we can have a quick chat / call next week to go over it? Right: here again we'd pull out the S2X gateway from the XMPP service deployment. > Example 10: > > Missing To header > > Example 14: > > Call-ID missmatch > > Example 16: > > The SUBSCRIBE must be in-dialog, same problem as Example 8. Noted, will fix those three. > Section 4.3.3 > > Point 2 it’s not very clear to me, upon receiving the SUBSCRIBE > request with Expires 0, there is no need to send it again. This is from the XMPP server (via the gateway), not from the SIP user to the XMPP user, in order to cancel the subscription in the other direction from what's shown in Example 16. Do you feel this isn't necessary? > Example 18: > > Maybe we need to mention that the XMPP resource can contain unicode > and xs:ID is ASCII only? This is covered in RFC 7247, but a pointer to that spec can't hurt. > Point 5: To terminate the subscription from the notifier side, a > NOTIFY with Subscription-State: terminated is sent, not a SUBSCRIBE > with Expires 0, that is used from the subscriber side. I think that's right. > Example 22: > > A presence probe was a one-off presence request, right? If so, the > CSeq should be 1, since this would be a new dialog. Also, missing To > header. Yes. > Example 23: > > Same as above. OK. Thanks for the feedback! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Tue Mar 17 16:20:29 2015 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 811141A6FEF for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:27 -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 rXyjHl2LTbiR for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072321A1BCF for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igcqo1 with SMTP id qo1so28199389igc.0 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:25 -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=22+ZjUgxOdse2RL8fTBDk1aJ3qyZx6q4uqYCj86LsJw=; b=XfqSx0KtRxeB+aCDYl63SW8ueKt/4CXNHzAcuP1yEyOH2w1pzt7MeAzXbEs4YFaDF2 4f3jvCC3O0GMIjfm7rYiHGOhRWSexxXUZniyBiIBxJgVa9YfE8q97tdBznG7EyvURSnt f/JK1VwhKZ94UmmiN94iMuSABqtKl/u9vT6b3NJorcCf5LF8aoPvfHPSbAAAHoiGQ/lS ISMO3I3kP6odhw0Aahd5c70SZjRGlmJPKX8bzW1q0yFIU1eKIvRYE9Jr+fSlDT09xzst JZfitqKhvofDwlxQjSX2l0oYlSd0miEB0uu30TxIlmR9vnxoJhciZxqwghFuMw02nmpZ ApUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlL5uBkQPgUjZ83+KwwwcA15D1AlIMaYU4wMAuP8b9LiYL4s+jDes8HEqMbT8qKPHKZhEPb X-Received: by 10.42.167.8 with SMTP id q8mr90452636icy.94.1426634425390; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:25 -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 k9sm382740ige.6.2015.03.17.16.20.24 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5508B6B7.3070600@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:20:23 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= , stox@ietf.org References: <5508AC63.7020405@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <5508AC63.7020405@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Stox] My review on draft-ietf-stox-7284bis 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, 17 Mar 2015 23:20:27 -0000 On 3/17/15 4:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > Hi Saúl, thanks for the review. > > On 3/13/15 10:04 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: >> Section 4.3.3 >> >> Point 2 it’s not very clear to me, upon receiving the SUBSCRIBE >> request with Expires 0, there is no need to send it again. > > This is from the XMPP server (via the gateway), not from the SIP user to > the XMPP user, in order to cancel the subscription in the other > direction from what's shown in Example 16. Do you feel this isn't > necessary? I looked at this more closely and you're right. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Mar 23 10:34:17 2015 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 982B21ACE63; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:34:14 -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 9R84zh0LGPl5; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308CE1ACEAB; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:34:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150323173411.14363.3528.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:34:11 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-01.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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:34:14 -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): Presence Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-01.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2015-03-23 Abstract: This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of presence information between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). This document obsoletes RFC 7248. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-01 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/