Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <> Thu, 12 February 2015 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4917A1A8A8D for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7nCQ42jJ7_0a for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5C11A8A25 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b16so1306832igk.1 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dWqEOkcQpmVxLIa6yW18CcTK4dZH6Xwa3xrFtj9Si1g=; b=ZDKx7Owu0kVXkL/CXIXxEMmrqOMVTVwGVAKvJJfsb8ET+E33DCkFSfMGB4rHDM3t25 QZXS0m6F4msww+AEB39hNuQfQhwDQI/PweqScQ6rVRVSVdezkQB3pngUCqnpyq0d+Mil ghF+JZJtJny4ERyRTOHVFgrkMzE4hV8WUiAGJcUfUZwAZ1gxyjBjhEI/b4Of+KrQ3RLO sZ6mUWjUMH1E2uhnrstzDqQJl0vBuMQCZYPrx//aafI8LNEorVKHq4UaKUA+PBahBWIW DLcZWG9bop+AXD8cZup1UbnMnaAygDZ1pOunOGCxmDcOlAdSgjqjErKCikFFQmL3ElcV wzpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgn0Qq4LSvdDj3I2nUVGT2jgC6M9NBII1ToksNwbjdmT5wqBZ4962cRuDk/J7eMF+DQ6FR
X-Received: by with SMTP id q129mr2359094ioe.23.1423713110136; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c6sm1704853ioe.37.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:51:48 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Alissa Cooper <>
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:51:55 -0000

On 2/9/15 4:01 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> (Alissa pointed out that I left the STOX list of of these--resending.)
> One more thing: The SIP CSeq headers are incorrect in several places. CSeq is missing from most SIP messages, except in BYE requests.
> (This is also true for stox-chat. I will send notes on that separately.)

See clarifying question in the stox-chat thread.

>>> On 2/6/15 4:34 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> (No hats)
>>>> Hi Peter and Alissa,
>>>> I just reviewed version groupchat-09, and it looks good. I just noticed a few nits:
>>>> Section 4: The bulleted text for and don't seem to quite match the figure. The figure calls both the focus and switch (which may not be what you want. is a SIP proxy.

Correct. This is better:

    o -- a SIP proxy with an associated signaling gateway
       ("S2X GW") to XMPP.

    o -- a SIP-based conference focus and MSRP switch
       with an associated gateway ("M2X GW") to XMPP.

>>>> 5.1: The indented paragraph about MSRP URLs could be interpreted to mean that the explicit port is only required for a literal address. In fact, it's always required.

How's this?

       There is no direct mapping for the MSRP URIs.  In fact MSRP URIs
       identify a session of instant messages at a particular device;
       they are ephemeral and have no meaning outside the scope of that
       session.  The authority component of the MSRP URI here MUST
       contain the XMPP-to-MSRP gateway hostname or numeric IP address
       (as well as, in accordance with [RFC4975], an explicit port

Thanks again for your careful reviews.


Peter Saint-Andre