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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 2EB811A7026; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NkcgF6Ap0JAQ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (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 4762F1A7003; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so37055364lbv.8; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aVhZrz2wGOOHXM7r7w3GWe3LdOIhLwfBJp5l6I7gznw=; b=sCkzaNlCZjudxLL0pCXzbMl61LGz//UPYtrk8+4vnSLU/qvCWGCCqi2jcjCg3dZysJ QIFjB+eI0K3UeH9w0B48myhfJ50uVlF7MF+2Nyrb05Pdx3iG8glcKvtQLGwZ/vzRHjzo tJsk4MIYQg0Vlbe1h7SOZAhm93yDfzmfgpbflETXHvwAm+huqEySr4CBoSgFde0zMm81 O8N4C62ECUgfMJEFzV8UqRUtcpvJWaaPtyV/jcSUQqX4pJh9s28n8Qvwo2J7TtDtrQVE gZ26s2Syqj2jRczllhbNJivj+cAnwwSvuCFLY0nekEChBZkCr5wN3KPxdFuvWWRjb/E5 czmA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.162.232 with SMTP id yd8mr14417156lbb.41.1425674008727; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.22.100 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:33:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net>
References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <CAKKJt-e75tZYUHa0FLGyQgu49VABYFj1h+1mmB0+ofvHf0K-Rw@mail.gmail.com> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net> <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:33:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eGDGca596O_LeAiyqJJFcz1gBcA8gSYrQK82Ppo8UtoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" <peter@andyet.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184bbadb17060510a49898
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/78-vysgjVKC1crGuqUb8K8GXBQk>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, stox-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:33:33 -0000

Peter,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
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
>>> <peter@andyet.net <mailto:peter@andyet.net>> 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