Re: [mile] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 25 March 2019 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFD9120158 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 DOKyGz5_bzFC for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (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 CF214120154 for <mile@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id d26so9077705ede.10 for <mile@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3gcGXZnG0tymtO6dH1eLzdp7rWbvzWGJnNwrSvgdXyg=; b=jmFfEP/q3WVJc6wT65x3Ucpz1j1MExKzRzFUVEub6uADvHyvUW0DZiglmYRWp5wpD/ Qsj2n5BOxHO7foubTvM9FEnjqkGAdw/cXriY469CngdZrpbs79QHbWTIuKHgZL3pyBQp Ctc6+HioMJnk42ZUlE7hYoG5ZtzvVISPLhfRk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3gcGXZnG0tymtO6dH1eLzdp7rWbvzWGJnNwrSvgdXyg=; b=RAJRz9e15+icMHhCeatDTdsrVF6Of/2Lfwl4Dv/YFg46FhF++SUf+igb29MaYOnUxK EBOGYgGoz9ZIFkA0YvsQvH5XbTZkUV0OZswHFXwoN1/JkT3tAr8KHAQJBRF5lIlIivig cMFvRD2LzRiM5aTSTgB7HmdDZiK+DsI9tJ0fGuL2fK1ZhgC/0Vw955+HxO6lnauikDfm LU3ITzOaKLNA8B3sj8oFEwKdRNkw0y+jV7m3apIJNukVXjkz95vbA36DCZcXjyegmsVS TeyIMtyGz7z7uOd6weYpPGHhEm8OorqH575pjvfdnjtHZ/F6coOuNKy3y/zqtpqs2YKk pFtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWG8vjTKRHkzWpFUWPrLceTHL1/gQ2K2Zfczsafsvk8NwhWaA+L 43fq0woBHNqi6L/tr5HpzC4cnGkYkXKfk+J/LiO6vQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzE8zD1UUgxIXNeOz8yzrfxKX4jk7rF8s1vYLMaz/mbfXgl8s7qJYP8u7xHrw945tnjKMo8VP5UabOdj3GO48c=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:eac8:: with SMTP id u8mr185918edp.125.1553555491275; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154821326562.13271.17282561556237229622.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4BD85B49-9F10-4724-B5C7-B4257D8A83CD@cisco.com> <8125411B-783D-4469-B60B-422FA4E447FF@cisco.com> <50DCB5B2-8045-4878-ACA2-A9BE1246DFF1@cisco.com> <C92CD6AF-CC03-4734-8CB4-2FACD071EBFC@cisco.com> <840D870A-36F9-4B32-918B-8F4A3D04EBDF@cisco.com> <7F9B5B96-D304-44B4-88D3-A598450477FF@nostrum.com> <2cee29b8-99ce-2053-6044-2c2e4c501557@mozilla.com> <67A5EFDB-F42F-4FE3-8DB0-9280B06C9289@nostrum.com> <0c972a62-9086-769e-5474-c40557be3e2f@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <0c972a62-9086-769e-5474-c40557be3e2f@mozilla.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:11:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzx1CDUs4_fzM7x5kK-vLsc+bqS65rzBpyo70LfwV+8Bjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid@ietf.org>, "mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "mile-chairs@ietf.org" <mile-chairs@ietf.org>, "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003262320584f35312"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/b1B8b503K7Eep8xzlblGwTEqKHI>
Subject: Re: [mile] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mile/>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:11:38 -0000

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 22:06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>; wrote:

> Hi Ben, thanks for continuing to engage on these topics. Replies inline.
>
> On 3/24/19 3:55 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 24, 2019, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>;
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/24/19 1:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >>> Hi, apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I’m trying to close
> >>> or clarify my DISCUSS points prior to stepping down from the IESG this
> >>> week. Please see inline:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Ben.
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 4, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
> >>>> <ncamwing@cisco.com <mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ben,
> >>>>     Thanks for the careful review and comments, please see answers
> below:
> >>>>
> >>>>     On 1/22/19, 19:14, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com
> >>>> <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>         DISCUSS:
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>         Hi, thanks for the readable approach to this. I like the plain
> >>>> English approach
> >>>>         to the security considerations, in particular. But I do have
> >>>> some comments,
> >>>>         including a couple that I think needs to be resolved before
> >>>> progressing the
> >>>>         draft:
> >>>>
> >>>>         1) I was surprised not to see a discussion of the "never-meet"
> >>>> problem. That
> >>>>         is, what happens if a provider and a consumer never connect
> >>>> with the controller
> >>>>         at the same time. Is the controller expected to
> >>>> store-and-forward items
> >>>>         submitted to a topic prior to when the consumer connects? IIRC
> >>>> (and I apologize
> >>>>         that I did not have time to refresh my memory on the
> >>>> referenced XEPs), that
> >>>>         sort of behavior is optional under XEP-0060. Is it required
> >>>> for this use case?
> >>>>         Is support for delayed delivery (xep-0203) or something
> >>>> similar required? Or
> >>>>         perhaps platforms are expected to keep long-lived connections?
> >>>>     [NCW] I think this is an implementation detail, but we've added a
> >>>> sentence in section 4
> >>>>     To describe that it is an option per XEP-0060.
> >>>
> >>> I’m not sure that’s enough to solve the isssue. I think this is more
> >>> than an implementation detail. I think there’s some implicit
> assumptions
> >>> about how and when providers and consumers connnect to the server that
> >>> are required for interoperation. These should be explicit. For example,
> >>> do you expect that consumers will maintain long-lived connections to
> the
> >>> server, or just connect occasionally to download any waiting data? If
> >>> there are several new pieces of data published while a consumer is not
> >>> connected, do they expect to download all the changes or just the
> >>> latest? (i,e does this require the server to be configured for
> >>> persistent items?)
> >>
> >> The "never-meet" problem isn't really a problem in XMPP - all servers
> >> implement support for so-called "offline messages" and the message
> >> delivery semantics defined in Section 8 of RFC 6121 take full account of
> >> eventual delivery by servers to clients that are not online at the time
> >> the message was created. A reference to RFC 6121 should be sufficient to
> >> correctly specify this behavior.
> >
> >
> > I agree referencing RFC 6121 would help.  I had missed the fact the
> examples use ‘message' stanzas (although if there is normative text that
> says to do that, I have still missed it.)
>
> XEP-0060 uses message stanzas for content delivery.
>
> > Am I mistaken to remember that offline-storage is still optional even
> for message stanzas?
> >
> > In any case, a mention of the use of offline-storage as described in
> 6121 would be sufficient to for me to clear on this point. It would be nice
> for it to suggest (normatively or otherwise) the use of offline-storage, or
> at least point out the consequences of not using it.
>
> Specifying that servers MUST support offline storage for these use cases
> seems appropriate. I can't remember why we said it was only SHOULD-level
> in the updated XMPP RFCs (6120 & 6121) - that was silly of us.
>
>
We called it SHOULD because there are multiple methods for the
decortication of felines, some possibly preferable to the "traditional"
offline messages, and it might be a sensible choice to use these and no
longer support offline messages in the sense of XEP-0160.

In particular, there's XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) which, either
as a "personal" archive on the consumer's server, or as a service available
on the Pubsub Node, would allow a consumer to "catch up" perfectly well -
and probably more effectively than the XEP-0160 style.

Plus there's XEP-0198 (Stream Management), which rather blurs what
"offline" actually means, XEP-0357 (Push Notifications) which might send
the traffic out of band, and so on.

Also "SHOULD" doesn't mean "OPTIONAL", as Ben OUGHT to know. ;-)


> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> mile@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile
>