[Stox] review of presence (was: Re: review of core, chat, groupchat and presence)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 12 August 2013 21:55 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 D5A6821E8056 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.753
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 mcloM-BSJcN5 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCFF21F9FE3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [64.101.72.39]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4705DE8343; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:57:45 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520959A9.6020907@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:54:49 -0600
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: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
References: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de>
In-Reply-To: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: [Stox] review of presence (was: Re: review of core, chat, groupchat and presence)
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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:55:37 -0000

On 8/8/13 12:33 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:

> pres:
>     should mention different concepts, long-lived vs short-lived in
>     intro, not only in 3.3.2

Yes, Ben Campbell mentioned that during the WG session in Berlin, too. I
propose adding the following paragraph to the introduction:

   SIP and XMPP differ significantly in their presence subscription
   models, since SIP subscriptions are short-lived (requiring relatively
   frequent refreshes even during a presence session) whereas XMPP
   subscriptions last across presence sessions until they are explicitly
   cancelled.  This document provides suggestions for bridging the gap
   between these very different models.

>     3.1: im uri of the form <pres:>?

Copy and paste error. Will fix.

>     3.3.1: if a subscription already exists -> already defined in 6121,
>     not sure if this was in 3921 already

RFC 3921 said:

   However, if the user receives a presence stanza of type
   "subscribe" from a contact to whom the user has already granted
   permission to see the user's presence information (e.g., in cases
   when the contact is seeking to resynchronize subscription states),
   the user's server SHOULD auto-reply on behalf of the user.

I suspect that RFC 6121 goes into more detail about that scenario, since
it goes into more detail about everything. ;-)

>     4.3: table 7 CSeq <-> id?! consistency...

That was fixed in -01.

Thanks for the feedback!

Peter

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