[Stox] Stephen Farrell's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 18:37 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 DCEF21A1A59 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:43 -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 rD03ovaRwkwP for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (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 F0BCC1A6EF9 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igkb16 with SMTP id b16so48329141igk.1 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7BnLCMe4j44jYwreimrg4X6fxqhm54aGp/Q+nzLHugM=; b=B2bXHKx8ZDk8K5MNTJc00J4HsHKRyG5QUOOaGy7+eoeMKpCGLZ0DP3GLAWr9k9C2DA KOIwGDoMDIuMwyoYGXyAcUnHWGu27l9lAZB75P4Io8imMfpSP8koozOPK2KrSu6SiD8f macq3Bs3VWV/8MSFCEcPS273/QPB9zbwXlzPUw+Fskr5GrVyw4VO1JtZK/cXzbVAN0Xq PvW54NYzYsTmlwXZoCekfSM8x6vZgG6da4wwKzoIqbKBWHPSv3L6l9/kKYsGqvgfcafj 36TUrZ+omGfIfATp/XQ2QuQsbSapyPct8NREvbZ2Nk0ghJG9BedWMAgChz946oGJ472l MOqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJw7aganImdQGkV5iDbeYGQ4a2QlihGCqkKk8+XvkADueqkjH1IOCvk8cjARXr5lx4QllI
X-Received: by 10.107.136.230 with SMTP id s99mr21956484ioi.8.1425580661325; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:41 -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 z3sm5510632igl.1.2015.03.05.10.37.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F8A273.3010807@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:37:39 -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/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/9VIb-MnqqIOlw9kgtnYSSRMOeDw>
Subject: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat
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, 05 Mar 2015 18:37:44 -0000

One last set of comments...

Stephen Farrell wrote:

    - Figure 1 is way complicated. I guess it might just
    need to be but it's fairly unreadable. If you think it
    worth looking at again, then maybe dropping the outer
    boundary "lines" might make it clearer.

Yeah, it's messy, but then so is the underlying architecture. I'll 
experiment with the ASCII art a bit to see if I can make it more legible.

    - 5.4: is the use of ellipsis for the SIP version of
    xmpp's "from" in table 3 sufficiently clear? Are there
    any quote characters or other stuff that might be gotten
    wrong? I wonder if the tables are a little too terse.

They might be too terse. We'll take a closer look at them to see if we 
can explain them a bit more clearly.

Peter

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