Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>
>> On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Peter,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.
>>>
>>>     On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>>
>>>         Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>>>         draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection
>>>
>>>         When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>>>         to all
>>>         email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>>>         cut this
>>>         introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>>         Please refer to
>>>         http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__statement/discuss-criteria.__html
>>>         <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>>>         for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>>         The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>>> here:
>>>         http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/
>>>         <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------__----------------------------
>>> --__----------
>>>
>>>         COMMENT:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------__----------------------------
>>> --__----------
>>>
>>>
>>>         I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for
>>>         that.
>>>
>>>         I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue,
>>>         please
>>>         remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent
>>>         understanding
>>>         of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I
>>> see raw
>>>         XMPP.
>>>
>>>         It did not jump out at me when reading this specification,
>>>         whether there
>>>         is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a
>>>         message
>>>         was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the
>>>         gateway.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)
>>>
>>>     In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end
>>>     <http://xmpp.org/extensions/__xep-0184.html
>>>     <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html>> but that's an extension
>>>     to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for
>>>     session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat
>>>     instead of draft-ietf-stox-im.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say
>>> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure,
>>> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead".
>>>
>>
>> That sounds reasonable.
>>
>> The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I
>> understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP,
>> only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for
>> single instant messages).
>>
>
> Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im
> document:
>
>    Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange
>    "instant messages".  The term "instant message" usually refers to a
>    message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time
>    (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended
>    recipient upon request).  This document covers single messages only
>    (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest
>    common denominator for IM.  Separate documents cover "session-mode"
>    instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions
>    [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions
>    [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat].  In particular, session-mode instant
>    messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode
>    instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end-
>    to-end message delivery.
>

That's exactly the kind of edit I was hoping for. Thanks!

Spencer