Re: [Stox] Extended WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Wed, 28 May 2014 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220481A037D for <>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1M84dpux0ddf for <>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BC61A0151 for <>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imac.saghul.lan ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D862314AC001; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:51:59 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:51:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc:, Paul Kyzivat <>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Extended WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:52:05 -0000

On May 27, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 5/2/14, 2:16 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> I took a look at this. Disclaimer: It's been a long time since the
>> simple-chat work was done and I haven't been involved with it since. So
>> maybe I have forgotten or missed something.
>> Section 4:
>> Both F4 and F5 are 200 OK messages! It appears that F5 is unintended -
>> it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere.
> Yes, that's an extraneous line.
>> In a variety of places in the MSRP examples:
>> The "gr=" URI parameter is used with sip URIs. It seems to be carrying
>> nicknames. I don't know where that usage is coming from - it doesn't
>> seem to come from draft-ietf-simple-chat-18. Should probably check with
>> one of the authors of simple-chat about this.
> We do talk about the GRUU mapping in the stox-core spec (now RFC 7247). Here the GRUU valies (MUC) are mapping resourceparts of full JIDs, which in XMPP Multi-User Chat also serve as nicknames.
> So, for instance, this is a mere resourcepart for a user's connected device:
>   Contact: <>;gr=balcony
> Whereas this is a resourcepart functioning as a MUC nickname:
> Preserving this information from the XMPP side of the gateway seems like a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), but I am not sure if a standard MSRP implementation would make use of the information. Checking with the authors of draft-ietf-simple-chat seems like a reasonable thing to do.
> Saúl, what does your implementation do with the GRUU in both cases (mere resourcepart and MUC nickname)?


Mere resourcepart is translated to a full JID. When using MUC, 2 things happen: the address is translated to a bare JID and a NICKNAME chunk is sent over MSRP in order to join the groupchat. The occupant JID is translated to a GRUU, which can be used for private messaging.

Hope that helps!

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects