Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08
Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 02:58 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 CE1701A03E3 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 obuxRO48YAHI for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D7401A1B5C for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so8903083ier.9 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:57:56 -0800 (PST)
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=zV89mJz7L6XmCDsohOpN4yhv98RcRNJWQSaw6N98KF8=; b=T0Fv88h6zNDywOlPSSg7Jq5HnJqCFP4n5gz0QHEeEHCQZUbLwbTS+xTAM2JMbjEzS6 TBfPWUDx3h+IZQtX5/7fooLUt5vBaqKcTDMWCiJGQ1z4K6rdN/YDgQUUMFU9e4ST+PVH QEoOcGjN4pGwkSNhCYWlSw1b5peoSvz8Y8kBXxtMIRkE6+utRKxKmRmriPoNZ6nnlTmT PI1yMqoORBLTC9tEgNEKnkbHxfQo+84ACtt17g9Ry45Fsop3+yjMftfg9Y5icDvIKtS4 vtWREuGJ4ewbKLlsuOOdc3YkCZfZRYIEqDa4w5fSy40nX5ZZFAUuRdiQk4+8nr+tSp+z oUsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnI+aEyv+SdFC74Hr2+tAAH3XZ+VsZqKlJ9uWmWLZx+v2+a8RnB5+HVP87OlaWR0/bLWyHF
X-Received: by 10.107.46.213 with SMTP id u82mr2255069iou.68.1423709876843; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:57:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t41sm1648626ioi.0.2015.02.11.18.57.55 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:57:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DC16B3.2020205@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:57:55 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <0C205FB7-2C6B-4773-830F-B8354CC65A75@cooperw.in> <54CFA75F.2040605@andyet.net> <31B110BC-C8B0-48B0-BD24-2F7F7DCA1ED6@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <31B110BC-C8B0-48B0-BD24-2F7F7DCA1ED6@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/4fyE9oM4axtSJ4YekPOYkMXCmy4>
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:58:04 -0000
On 2/9/15 4:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > On Feb 2, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote: > >> On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> = Section 7 = Is all of the delivery report behavior meant to be >>> entirely optional to support, or should there be some normative >>> requirements listed in this section? >> >> IMHO this is entirely optional (as with Section 6). > > I think the difference between Section 6 and Section 7 is that Section 6 at least gives a little narrative description of how to do the mapping for composing notifications, whereas in Section 7 there is no such description, it’s just illustrated by examples. So I would suggest adding a sentence or two that generically describes what the gateway in each direction should do to map an MSRP REPORT to an XMPP message receipt request/response and vice versa. This is obviously a small thing but seems like good practice. This can be dealt with during IETF LC. Yes, I see your point. Will add. > Ben has sent comments on this draft and I’d like to see how that discussion resolves before issuing the IETF LC. Agreed. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/
- [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08 Alissa Cooper