Re: [Stox] Review on -im

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 01 August 2013 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 641D221F9AB4 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.831
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wy3ocLaSmgXk for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5443C21F9AB8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-1-187.cisco.com (unknown [198.135.0.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6274BE8320; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:00:05 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51FA2309.8080101@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:57:45 +0200
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
References: <7AE79F98-B222-4BBC-BC02-1606AF8F34A9@ag-projects.com> <51F9238D.106@stpeter.im> <4DFDCC4B-9568-4BA9-A3F5-C466E8549DCE@ag-projects.com> <51F92992.4070802@stpeter.im> <00DCCF5E-1D4B-4BFE-8986-A1B3B5682FF0@ag-projects.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A064849@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <ADC133B2-C453-4F9D-AC53-6D8334961396@ag-projects.com> <51FA1C59.4090808@stpeter.im> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A064E0A@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9E17105F-80AF-429E-B183-DABA8A75FDA9@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E17105F-80AF-429E-B183-DABA8A75FDA9@ag-projects.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review on -im
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:57:55 -0000

On 8/1/13 10:55 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> 
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:52 AM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't add RFC 5438 to my slides, though, because I too had forgotten about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> One piece of data that would be helpful is to know how widely RFC 5438 is
>>> implemented, in comparison to RFC 4975. IMHO what we're trying to do in
>>> this WG is to describe practical interworking between SIP and XMPP.
>>> If a particular SIP or XMPP method is not widely implemented, I say that we
>>> don't talk about it because it's purely theoretical (e.g., I removed everything
>>> about XEP-0155). Thus some input on that point would be helpful here.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the principle of including only methods that are supported by real client implementations, especially related to specs that are a few years old already. 
>>
>> I have not personally heard about RFC 5438 implementations. So unless someone has other info, I'm fine with excluding it from the stox-im spec.
>>
> 
> FWIW, I haven't seen any myself either.

Thanks for the data points!

Peter

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