Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

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

A further thought...

On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> 
>> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

<snip/>

>>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic?
>>>>
>>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP
>>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway follows the
>>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A gateway
>>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it chooses
>>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and vice-versa).
>>>
>>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, but I
>>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP
>>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated.
>>
>> Maybe. :-)
>>
>> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model or the
>> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, though.
>>
> 
> I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" subscription
> model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and a SIP
> subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have an
> ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the
> subscription is long lived, and the presence session is relatively
> ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence of an
> entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription is ephemeral.
> 
> So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP subscriber
> authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a SIP
> subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions of either
> side.

That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch in
models. I'm going to ruminate on the matter but first (i.e., right now)
submit a revised I-D that incorporates (I think) all of the other fixes.

Peter