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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Tue, 29 September 2015 16:32 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 6C1271B47DF for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
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 AeoepFbRoFgC for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (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 316251B47DE for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so84319500igc.1 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=x//N2/GBksQmmJt/v79nIcVZymvovfX3HubD1mAxrqo=; b=EswlK/JVm/wXXkpHaz5W8G5epDlE6UP497bbYoNZ4wQIs65+g5+RlpUEd8s6j1sqgs BTwifUBpvx7a4UfSGIKSFlfA+yz9jJu85BU9vO860Tmqn3OnQnQwPN37kOeADylpMENl 8YD0FdGUkQvDq6GR1oJlu30RU+7HkkuZtroweEswqMICHAWx28IlZJYL8YkgVmPNsT/2 xKVcTrAKwxlgucLk6K2T7wG5FPj+bLezyzzFEPRJ5zpEVJfH6uNH6BULuatRI0+tjsNC 76KObifvQ7g4+kJqsKCE70Ky82TyWez8/ysdd2ZavfzN8tM6OB8M1mKtDZzyIGHug5I5 SDUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdZBfG6A9uvt6Gee2j1pGn4stRCeK29sno7NDXIX3ZAMgq/nGOWS/0OhM3THR8ozIW5Cb6
X-Received: by 10.50.8.3 with SMTP id n3mr24788584iga.26.1443544333561; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4201:ef5b:504:fb71:bc2:ab64]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u99sm11521732ioi.0.2015.09.29.09.32.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <5609F44F.4020702@andyet.net> <802DAAC4-1DA2-4787-8121-8DB29D4B4B80@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
Message-ID: <560ABD0A.9060303@andyet.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:32:10 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <802DAAC4-1DA2-4787-8121-8DB29D4B4B80@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/4sDc5CkvUTTNOnFulgVNKGk_Dzw>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:32:17 -0000

On 9/28/15 9:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:15, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>
>> Proposed text inline.
>>
>> On 9/23/15 8:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/15 9:25 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>

[...]

>>>> -- Example 4:
>>>>
>>>> The Request-URI should match the Contact header field value from the
>>>> SUBSCRIBE. (Technically, from the last message from the peer, but
>>>> assuming you don't have them change contacts mid-stream, it's the
>>>> same.)
>>>> You also might want to consider whether the aforementioned contact
>>>> values are useful examples. (Repeats in later examples)
>>>
>>> Noted.
>>
>> Is your suggestion that we not include the Contact headers, or only
>> that we look carefully at the values of those headers?
>
> The second. The contact identifies (and routes to) the device that sent
> the containing message. And with RFC 6665, the contact sent by the
> notifier MUST contain a GRUU (RFC 5627).
>
> For example:
>
>        Contact: <sip:juliet@example.com;gr=hdg7777ad7aflzig8sf7>
>
>
> It wouldn't hurt for the subscriber to also contain one, albeit the gruu
> value should be unique per device.

OK I will see how to update the text and examples here. More soon. :-)

Peter

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