Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Fri, 17 October 2014 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45E51A86FC for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 JPNRA09ZPeIc for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69F61A1BB5 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hn15so2111520igb.3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C9CndHmWgVeQXXYhXGqFZN2Iasb3o61XhTgLvTSQvlc=; b=Lmx7CTzGjqMVLtg5/Dwpgb29QiIgXPEKNsu0I3hBQiszVi6ehfXXSs3t8deYtUjDJg BXbCkpWMZ2lskK8HxS9DwKgAIYtXY4voqu4TYossbinzHOy6j7mbXRqqa8Yq9Qx/UAzT DFVvai41z7sCt9KmPewirv/f5lPLjP9gpB3Ze5LkWLFbbM5ge5HPqZWjmQ2200t0x4Ci XM9gsDA4smpVWil9AOhXCRueieXSysN17m3xTQkRmJn2n75MJrYLRP1qorvdhGdmpGEd w1WPUFPXo6UNyhxYe1ANrhfny10lsa7gM3Gpt7qe8WKWRSAb+PyzHX3gQ3EZ0ixTpZXR KB9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkb0I6F//pzq9XuSa77AkhW6jSujapKhddd/J25fU/pfP9Uv7Q/TKgxz3K5fvvRERe1VovY
X-Received: by 10.43.63.17 with SMTP id xc17mr7486583icb.50.1413510286016; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 140sm3981571ioe.38.2014.10.16.18.44.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5440748C.606@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:44:44 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>
References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/0LJwWisfxtDt1NTNyWBjHjQuzoA
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:44:50 -0000

On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:

> We have been using “SIP-to-XMPP” and “XMPP-to-SIP” all along, but now
> some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP” thing
> appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in
> the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP
> go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To
> be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is
> “XMPP-to-MSRP”.

Hi Saúl, thanks for the feedback!

Section 4 currently has the following paragraph:

    These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
    in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP
    switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service
    and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code.

I propose that we change it to:

    These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
    in the same physical entity.  For example, the SIP conference focus
    and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC
    service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed
    code.  In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have
    separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP
    translation, but would instead have a single gateway.

I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to 
MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, 
an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch 
(as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a 
separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the 
MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would 
already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear 
description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and 
protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as 
we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The 
modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart 
implementer could figure it out.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/