Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Mon, 02 February 2015 16:23 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 76CF11A86FA for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:23:20 -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 Pf2_vXr3UNMD for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8981A86F2 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id at20so18580056iec.3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:23:07 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B+H2YGoNag/+1gR8hyl+s24TdW9+D+ZYyHsmH8elwhw=; b=eRXMzmd2tE1RI+0k/EszNsMR81YGiHiXzsCLS+UN7pATS9CIO43Kt0IWJ4MOuDC35k jrNYHTdqz6GjOvjco3RiObux5GGM9SMcq8Gq/C6q1ba1Efoetk7G1zPS5QZ7bqqNOTpz ku66Scvd2GTCnROoq8MBv01w/R8D9lsFevcJ2c8B2DsT956uZtISlIvgImLfONyUB/i+ WjDHSHraiOu3FhoxB6lAmeHG/mfbp+XPqTuXlhvi9nCv+1yYJEk+aNxzgvqaWwdnZBZm u7sjAANq6S7KwDmYFvKvAz9xR/5Kfp9UDq5O/OTkstR3pHciXEUDnEVDoy69/BOjJ1JX +u9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCIj6uNuZJqMFYKygo6O9Pt8Djj1d74f+33g/sU1RHeJRGQ4vqiKjE8scPfRP7RiCYO1Rt
X-Received: by 10.107.9.91 with SMTP id j88mr23135440ioi.91.1422894187027; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8202:a280:3df3:7ca3:bc84:ffd3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k9sm6283809ige.6.2015.02.02.08.23.06 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54CFA468.5070807@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:23:04 -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: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, stox@ietf.org
References: <48B4925F-747B-4453-AF7F-3B1E9505A549@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <48B4925F-747B-4453-AF7F-3B1E9505A549@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/95DuVIA3J3oYRaYdK7E7lc4SUTM>
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10
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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:23:20 -0000

Hi Alissa, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC, along with the
> -chat and -groupchat drafts. Overall the document appears in good
> shape. I have a comment I’d like to discuss before proceeding to IETF
> LC, along with an editorial nit to be addressed with any LC
> comments.
>
> You will note some commonality across my comments on all three
> drafts. In general, these drafts could do a better job of precisely
> specifying what is minimally required (normatively) for
> interoperability, versus what is optional or likely to differ between
> implementations. I think if at least the syntax mappings are
> normatively specified that should be sufficient, but the authors and
> WG might want to consider doing another pass at these documents to
> see if they could be more clear about which protocol exchanges the
> various gateways must support for STOX to work at all, versus which
> ones are suggested or optional.
>
> Comment:
>
> To achieve minimal interoperability, I think the syntax mappings in
> Section 4 need to be MUST-level requirements rather than SHOULD. Or,
> if there are cases envisioned in which different implementations
> might map the elements differently, those should be explained. But I
> assume there are not.

That seems reasonable.

Would you like the authors to complete this review and cleanup (with 
revised I-Ds for all three documents) before IETF Last Call?

> Nit:
>
> If GRUUs are generally not human-readable in use, I would suggest
> changing the ones in Section 4 to random identifiers.

Good point. Will fix.

Peter

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