Re: [sixpac] SIP AOR/GRUU discovery for offline XMPP contacts.

Emil Ivov <emcho@sip-communicator.org> Thu, 17 March 2011 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
X-Original-To: sixpac@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sixpac@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BC73A6B42 for <sixpac@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-hkyg0R9Gq5 for <sixpac@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3263A68BD for <sixpac@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2844598wwa.13 for <sixpac@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.140.11 with SMTP id g11mr431204wbu.57.1300405640808; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porcinet.local (shm67-5-88-165-90-188.fbx.proxad.net [88.165.90.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g7sm967483wby.48.2011.03.17.16.47.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D829D86.1020704@sip-communicator.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:47:18 +0100
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
Organization: SIP Communicator
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; bg; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4D792A10.4030506@sip-communicator.org> <F9E2FDAF48D4544F874A56A3A8BD68B1010AF1F1@008-AM1MPN1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4D79E104.1030207@sip-communicator.org> <4D825BE8.3060301@stpeter.im> <4D8269EC.6020209@sip-communicator.org> <4D82732D.507@stpeter.im> <4D82878F.8010102@sip-communicator.org> <4D829B8C.4000809@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4D829B8C.4000809@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sixpac@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sixpac] SIP AOR/GRUU discovery for offline XMPP contacts.
X-BeenThere: sixpac@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The SIXPAC \(SIP Interworking with XMPP in Presence Aware Clients\) list is dedicated to discussion of dual-stack SIP/XMPP user agents." <sixpac.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sixpac>, <mailto:sixpac-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sixpac>
List-Post: <mailto:sixpac@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sixpac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sixpac>, <mailto:sixpac-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:45:55 -0000

На 18.03.11 00:38, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
> On 3/17/11 4:13 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> На 17.03.11 21:46, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
>>> On 3/17/11 2:07 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> На 17.03.11 20:07, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
>>>>> On 3/11/11 1:44 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Simo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> На 11.03.11 08:43, Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com написа:
>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to also allow uploading and retrieving that
>>>>>>>> kind of information within a vCard? Of course, if available,
>>>>>>>> information in a presence or a message stanza should always take
>>>>>>>> precedence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This approach might be most straightforward. See
>>>>>>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0054.html which I believe will be
>>>>>>> superseded by http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I was also thinking about them and I guess all that we need to do
>>>>>> is indicate the elements where the AOR/GRUU would need to be stored and
>>>>>> retrieved from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would we use the vCard4 IMPP property for this?
>>>>
>>>> Syntax-wise it looks right. Semantically RFC 4770 seems to be declaring
>>>> it as an IM or a presence address only.
>>>>
>>>> So I am wondering if this could be source of confusion for non-sixpac
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> An example on page 2 seems to explicitly point that a SIP uri would be
>>>> used for SIMPLE chats and presence, and it is my understanding that most
>>>> sixpac clients would be unreachable this way.
>>>
>>> You have a point.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the TEL property is appropriate, instead:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-16#section-6.4.1
>>
>> It seems to come with a "*" cardinality so how would one distinguish
>> between the sixpac SIP uri and the regular phones? Do we define a new
>> scheme?
> 
> Do you mean that we'd need a new URI scheme to identify sixpac-aware SIP
> UAs? 

Nope, I was wondering if that's what you meant when you suggested using tel.

> That seems unnecessary.
>
> However, we could define a vcard extension for a special property.

+1

Cheers,
Emil
> 
>> Also, I am not sure how to read the following:
>>
>>     It is expected that the URI scheme will be "tel", as
>>     specified in [RFC3966]
>>
>> Does this mean that use with URI other than "tel" should be avoided?
> 
> I see no reason why a "sip" URI would be problematic, but we can ask the
> vcard folks about that.
> 
> Peter
>