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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 4917A1A8A8D for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7nCQ42jJ7_0a for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) (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 9B5C11A8A25 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id b16so1306832igk.1 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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 10.107.167.135 with SMTP id q129mr2359094ioe.23.1423713110136; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c6sm1704853ioe.37.2015.02.11.19.51.49 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DC2354.6080309@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:51:48 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
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 <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <71D99F08-87C8-4E4A-9DC3-2DC3C2991B1B@cooperw.in> <54CFACEA.1040304@andyet.net> <F93B50AE-EDB0-4111-8CC6-1724BB4CDC1E@nostrum.com> <54D55765.7050000@andyet.net> <FE21FF93-5980-442F-A9FE-EC5EA9FCFBDE@nostrum.com> <ED13BDE2-1E78-41C9-92AD-1416E113418F@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED13BDE2-1E78-41C9-92AD-1416E113418F@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/7yIFM11uxtUgZF0YjVSzUI0U6Co>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08
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: 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 example.org and chat.example.org don't seem to quite match the figure. The figure calls both the focus and switch chat.example.org (which may not be what you want.  Example.org is a SIP proxy.

Correct. This is better:

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

    o  chat.example.org -- 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
       number).

Thanks again for your careful reviews.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/