From nobody Fri Mar 11 20:21:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0FA12D886; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:21:18 -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: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160312042118.31032.85509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:21:18 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:21:18 -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 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-06.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2016-03-11 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: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Mar 11 20:23:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843A112DA6A for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:23:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 iUeQYS5rjNlQ for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F81E12D865 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FABA415FD; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:29:43 -0700 (MST) To: stox@ietf.org References: <20160312042118.31032.85509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <56E399D1.3040105@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:23:45 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160312042118.31032.85509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:23:48 -0000 This is an interim version that addresses much, but not all, of the feedback from Ben Campbell's AD review. I will post a further update before the IETF 95 cut-off date on March 21st. My apologies for the delays in processing Ben's feedback. Peter On 3/11/16 9:21 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the SIP-TO-XMPP 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-06.txt > Pages : 30 > Date : 2016-03-11 > > 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: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-06 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > stox mailing list > stox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox > From nobody Sun Mar 20 15:24:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C157B12D555; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:24:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 JZhPTIMITLMf; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E7612D547; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.94] (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B947AE81DD; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:30:57 -0600 (MDT) To: Ben Campbell , Peter Saint-Andre - &yet References: <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <56EF2316.8080501@stpeter.im> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:24:22 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05 X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 22:24:30 -0000 Some further thoughts on presence subscriptions below... On 09/24/2015 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On 23 Sep 2015, at 22:52, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> Hi Ben, thanks for the continued careful reviews. Comments inline. >> >> On 9/21/15 9:25 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > >>> -2nd paragraph after example 11: >>> This also needs a NOTIFY. You mention one in the following paragraph for >>> the declined case, but you need one in either case. >> >> Yes. The XMPP server will generate a presence notification in this >> case, so that's the primary NOTIFY of interest here, I think. > > I think it's still worth mentioning that it happens. And that brings up > another question: A RFC 6665 notifier is required to send an "immediate" > NOTIFY. Do you think the presence stanza will reliably arrive at the > gateway in time to be considered "immediate"? If there's any likelihood > of delay, the gateway may need to send a "pending" NOTIFY. > > [...] > >> >>> - 2nd bullet: >>> This description is confusing. You aren’t maintaining the SIP >>> subscription, just the xmpp subscription. >> >> "Treat the subscription as if it were long-lived" might be clearer. >> > > WFM. > >>> -- 2nd bullet, sub-item 2: >>> >>> Do I understand this to mean the XMPP gateway infers availability of the >>> SIP user from the SIP user’s subscription? That should come from a >>> reciprocal subscription. Just because a SIP user subscribes to someone >>> else's presence doesn't mean that user is available. Just because he >>> doesn't doesn't mean he is not. >> >> This flow describes what happens when the SIP user ends its presence >> session. In that case, it seems to me that sending a presence stanza >> of type "unavailable" to the XMPP user is appropriate (when the >> gateway treats the subscription as if it were long-lived). > > While it's probably not common in practice, it's perfectly okay > according to the protocol for a SIP user to stop subscribing to a > resource, while continuing to send updates to that resource on a > reciprocal subscription. It might be reasonable to assume the user to be > unavailable if you have no information to the contrary, but this advice > seems to suggest overriding presence information sent explicitly by the > SIP user with presence information inferred from the subscription. > > >> >>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic? >> >> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP >> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway follows the >> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A gateway >> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it chooses >> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and vice-versa). > > I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, but I > would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP > subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated. While attempting to improve the text, I've been thinking about this issue some more. I see two paths. 1. We could add a paragraph such as the following to Section 5.3.2 on refreshing a presence subscription from SIP to XMPP: Note: In SIP there is no necessary connection between a presence session and an outbound subscription to a contact's presence; for example, a SIP user agent could end its subscription to the contact's presence yet still keep sending presence notifications to the contact, or it could send a presence notification indicating that it is offline (i.e., by sending a PIDF document with a basic status of "closed") while still maintaining a subscription to the contact's presence. However, to simplify the description of handling notifications and subscriptions this document assumes that if a SIP user goes offline it will also terminate its outbound subscriptions. 2. We could remove any mention of presence sessions (i.e., online or offline state) from Section 5.3.2 and make it purely about presence subscriptions and not availability. I'm not sure which way to go. Currently Section 5.3.2 talks about presence notifications, so removing any mention of a presence session seems odd (after all, the whole point of presence subscriptions is to receive presence notifications). I will ponder this further but for now I will probably include a note similar to the one shown above until we can determine the best path forward. Peter From nobody Sun Mar 20 15:45:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A9512D596; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:45:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 hJAHTen1-23X; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085A112D555; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.94] (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6767FE81DD; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:52:16 -0600 (MDT) To: Ben Campbell References: <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:45:41 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05 X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 22:45:44 -0000 A further thought... On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic? >>>> >>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP >>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway follows the >>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A gateway >>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it chooses >>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and vice-versa). >>> >>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, but I >>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP >>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated. >> >> Maybe. :-) >> >> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model or the >> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, though. >> > > I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" subscription > model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and a SIP > subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have an > ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the > subscription is long lived, and the presence session is relatively > ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence of an > entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription is ephemeral. > > So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP subscriber > authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a SIP > subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions of either > side. That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch in models. I'm going to ruminate on the matter but first (i.e., right now) submit a revised I-D that incorporates (I think) all of the other fixes. Peter From nobody Sun Mar 20 15:52:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietf.org Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C54012D53A; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:52:04 -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: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160320225204.8954.8943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:52:04 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org Subject: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 22:52:04 -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 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-07.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2016-03-20 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: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 29 13:57:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E8512D99A; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 autolearn_force=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 ixyXfSK10DaT; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 BC39212DFDD; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u2TKQZ9N096276 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:26:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Peter Saint-Andre" Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:26:35 -0500 Message-ID: <4DA64D8D-7DD6-4F14-9213-1FFDF58EE90A@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> References: <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234) Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05 X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 29 Mar 2016 20:57:53 -0000 On 20 Mar 2016, at 17:45, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I'm going to ruminate on the matter but first (i.e., right now) > submit a revised I-D that incorporates (I think) all of the other > fixes. For my own clarity; the current version is intended to resolve all but this issue? Thanks! Ben. From nobody Tue Mar 29 14:49:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856BF12D1CD; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 autolearn_force=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 y1fmuRTbpNvn; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A603912D995; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6446AE81E0; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:55:05 -0600 (MDT) To: Ben Campbell References: <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> <4DA64D8D-7DD6-4F14-9213-1FFDF58EE90A@nostrum.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <56FAF809.8030005@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:47:53 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4DA64D8D-7DD6-4F14-9213-1FFDF58EE90A@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05 X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 29 Mar 2016 21:49:24 -0000 On 3/29/16 2:26 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 20 Mar 2016, at 17:45, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> I'm going to ruminate on the matter but first (i.e., right now) >> submit a revised I-D that incorporates (I think) all of the other fixes. > > For my own clarity; the current version is intended to resolve all but > this issue? Correct! However, I made the changes over a long period of time so I'm sure we'll need to check things over. I plan to do that on my own this week, but more eyes are better. :-) Peter