Re: [Stox] review: stox-im-03

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
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 C4DD021F9D44 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.623, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 9-iujMEYrFpN for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC8821F9DCE for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-d3-52412b12e26c
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 50.E8.16099.21B21425; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:02:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.183.147) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:02:58 +0200
Received: from Salvatore-Loretos-MacBook-Pro.local (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014A011045A; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:02:57 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <52412B11.1030305@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:02:57 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <523C17B9.2070408@ericsson.com> <523C2690.6090306@ericsson.com> <5240D29F.9070901@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <5240D29F.9070901@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VldI2zHI4OV3FYv/O5pYLY7t6Wd2 YPJYsuQnk8fcPS+YA5iiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDK+dB9mKTgvVPHx127WBsZ7/F2MnBwSAiYS Xz7NZoSwxSQu3FvPBmILCRxmlLh8CijOBWRvYJQ4sW82M0TiGKPE1IURXYwcHLwC2hINj0tA wiwCqhKLd19hAbHZBMwknj/cAlYuKpAs0XT5PlicV0BQ4uTMJ2C2iICWxKVrfewgNrOAsETn /U5GkJHCAmoSJ/4lQWzKlFjzbhPYGE6g8icftzFBlNtKXJhznQXClpfY/nYO1GVaEr1nO5km MArNQrJtFpKWWUhaFjAyr2Jkz03MzEkvN9zECAzTg1t+6+5gPHVO5BCjNAeLkjjvJr0zgUIC 6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYtf6c/DS30fPlCo1fHkVC6ksZEiKq/ydtXZxo/cf5 7G3Dcze+TpE10vld/mvDaqUg2X2hER84vIo2T1rYk7/kM6tAFq9qziXx2w/v5X9W7Ju/N8Ll zQZ9xaefzrRPOGo2MfBFH8fKFa+ZHjQftdKd45nz7nPvP9b3Z5c+y1397HhLT61n0ILDckos xRmJhlrMRcWJADzV6UQhAgAA
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] review: stox-im-03
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:03:04 -0000

On 9/24/13 2:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Sal, thanks for the review.
>
> On 9/20/13 4:42 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>
>> my only comments is about the fact that section 3. XMPP to SIP
>> implies that the MESSAGE is always (and maybe can only be)
>> delivered over a TCP connection; RFC3428 states
>>
>> Whenever possible, MESSAGE requests SHOULD be sent over transports
>> that implement end-to-end congestion control, such as TCP or SCTP.
>> However, SIP does not provide a mechanism to prevent a downstream
>> hop from sending a request over UDP.
>>
>> so you can delivery it over UDP as well and that has also being
>> raised in a previous thread while talking on the Call-ID mapping to
>> <thread/>. Actually you will be forced to deliver over UDP if the
>> SIMPLE server only supports UDP.
> It's not clear to me why the XMPP-to-SIP gateway couldn't communicate
> with the SIMPLE server over UDP. Which text in Section 3 do you think
> implies that only TCP connections are supported?
there is not text at all, and that is the problem.
When I read the Section 3 and the example I got the impression that
I can only use TCP to forward the message on the SIP side
but maybe it is only me!

cheers
Salvatore

>
> Peter
>
> - -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSQNKeAAoJEOoGpJErxa2p4GsP/i2SppGYjm4g1tOel6+z4G+q
> zmhA+198I9ETLhCGP340z0g/eR/E0mZazti4d/82mMdQuxaAYL4ECCBCcEfWOdi7
> 8jyt1HrGNX73rYI9cF4PN7b07REu4A7KIHzPmHme8RrAceuizkyts7sQtIiNcjoY
> bA+zIduglXWOsYRkIhLPQtT3MX5//wERzdtwjtP0SC9TiuioOXkr0gRQl2rjPY/D
> /kI3fT1XppxMdyaMO7tCkYcgzeXBKpFExpDmFXcKDuVGQfYIwsHsj58iZo9WgGf8
> rJXJhGeUcm4sU4HordkkfcD7h2QKyikoYAcyqyFNdfyW756psG2H/OV2eg4TJ6Zp
> Z9mpcel1QY44CByT6Mzy722JbFl9QYrB1KhjgspuGABZxRcAkKEO+z4prGNuvXHF
> y4c2q1yPaPxJFUQw5IgJUddqo+U7NXpI2w5Jg5Jrb557hPlKPTivIrfrUvCMJVR5
> 0ck1mfrrX6wMQU0vH5cASYYBZgwGtHlqcdVOCNSssl26FIvfaVUvaLW9SkcMR4OD
> EoW18vZ7XvrK6fJ8ec4tMIF6Cng/R1QM/MPpkgBTMBcPGmilAlGB+jBr8GAtwuql
> kzSl91IVZwMI66Fimi/knjaJCwotBdY7jjqa8CYHIvXhsZcma5wSyb37IwP1bTTN
> l+3Dhvz1tB4444evLgcG
> =5aYJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----