Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: 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
>>> 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-chat/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in 
>>> section
>>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or
>>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in
>>> section 6, seems useful.
>>
>> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, <active/> is sent along with
>> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at
>> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a
>> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as
>> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties.
>> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable...
>
> Proposed text:
>
>    The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the
>    sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a
>    message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway
>    could thus send an <active/> notification to the XMPP user when the
>    SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in
>    Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected
>    by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat
>    session.

Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an 
<inactive/> notification at the beginning, and send the <active/> with 
the first message. But either way, the above works.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]