Re: [dispatch] Comments on draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-presence-04

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 3/9/13 7:29 PM, Michael Lundberg wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for resubmitting the SIP-XMPP presence I-D.  I think this
> and the other documents are important as there are a lot of
> interworking issues today with XMPP and SIP/SIMPLE implementations,
> and I think these documents can help reduce some of those
> interworking challenges.
> 
> In order to help ensure interworking between different 
> implementations, I think Sections 5.2 and 5.3 need to have some 
> stronger ‘MUST’ language instead of SHOULDs, MAYs, etc.  This will 
> enforce proper and complete mappings between implementations that 
> conform to this document.

Quite possibly. In general I think it might be good to have a
discussion about how strong we want to make the recommendations in
this suite of documents.

> While I don’t think the document needs to enforce the use of the 
> <show/> element mapping discussed in 5.2, I think if
> implementations are going to use the mapping, this document should
> enforce the use of a specific namespace and describe the mapping of
> <show> values specified in RFC 6121 (i.e., away, dnd, chat, and
> xa).

One option, as I suggested in the I-D, is to use the 'jabber:client'
namespace, for instance:

<show xmlns='jabber:client'>away</show>

However, I have heard that different presence/IM systems have
different interpretations of the "dnd" (do not disturb) state. So I
think we might need to work that out.

> This will at least allow a minimum set of standard mappings between
> XMPP and SIP, which can be expanded on in future document(s).
> Section 5.3 could then also discuss how this mapping can be
> accomplished from SIP to XMPP if the SIP endpoints/devices support
> this same namespace.  One of the big interworking challenges with
> today’s implementations is the use of different namespaces given
> the extensibility of XML-based presence standards (e.g., PIDF,
> RPID), which allows individuals to create their own namespace.
> This flexibility is good for ingenuity, but problematic for
> interworking between different implementations.  I think
> standardizing a basic set of common status information using a 
> specific namespace is needed, and this document is a good place to
> do that.

That seems helpful.

> In my opinion, I do not think Section 6 should be part of this
> base document.  While I like the idea of encapsulating the SIP
> <presence> information into the XMPP message, I think this content
> should be a consideration for implementing ‘rich presence’.  As
> written, this method is only applicable for SIP to XMPP
> translation, and if the focus of this document is just ‘basic’
> presence information interworking, the SIP to XMPP mapping in
> Section 5.3 already describes a method for how this can be
> accomplished.

IMHO it would be fine to remove Section 6, unless someone really wants
it to be in this spec.

Thanks for the feedback!

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=t1Zx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----