Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

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

On 3/3/15 1:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - OTR works for xmpp. I think (not sure) it could be made
> work for MSRP or SIMPLE, and presumably then it might work
> here. If that's true, be good to note that and explain a bit
> how to do that. (And I don't mean the long-promised OTR I-D,
> just a pointer at the inevitably bad best reference we can
> find.)

Yes, we might do that in all three of these specs (or, as Barry 
suggests, mention it in the -im spec and point there from the others).

> - End of p12: "are suggested" is odd to see in an RFC, it
> might be better if you find some other wording.

I tend to agree with Barry that this is a UX thing, not a true interop 
thing.

Peter

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