Re: [Stox] WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-presence-05

Peter Saint-Andre <> Thu, 17 October 2013 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C4C11E81DE for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.631
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.502, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J3QZzYJoM4PO for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642A811E8213 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19BCE4100F; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:57:37 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:51:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philipp Hancke <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Stox] WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-presence-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 17 Oct 2013 22:51:25 -0000

On 10/17/13 3:43 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> Please review the document and bring any remaining issues, or issues
>> whose resolution is not satisfactory, to the attention of the Working
>> Group on this list before October 22. If after reviewing the document
>> you find it complete and do not have any comments, please send a note
>> to that effect as well.
> LGTM, with the usual nits:
> - 3.2.1 Establishing
>   should probably mention what is established (a presence subscription),
> same for the rest of the section headers, also in 3.3.

Yes. I think it would be good to modify the main section headings too,
as follows:

   3.  Subscriptions to Presence Information

   4.  Notifications of Presence Information

   5.  Requests for Presence Information

> - "Upon receiving the first NOTIFY with a subscription state of
> active..." -- I wanted to comment that the xmpp subscription state
> should be none+out, but it's no longer clear to me whether I am assuming
> too much intelligence in the gateway.

Agreed. I would hope the gateways don't need to be that smart.

> - after example 8, should the unsubscribed stana be sent when receiving
> an ack for that (which is not shown)? It doesn't matter much however.

Hmm, I don't know if it's necessary for the gateway to receive an ack
from the SIP users before sending the unsubscribed.

> - "or, if a subscription already exists in the XMPP user's roster,
> discard the subscribe request" -- I think 6121 says the server should
> send subscribed without bothering the user. Simplifies the following
> paragraph.

True. That's better...

   In accordance with [RFC6121], the XMPP user's server MUST deliver the
   presence subscription request to the XMPP user (or, if a subscription
   already exists in the XMPP user's roster, send a presence stanza of
   type 'subscribed').

> - "translating the NOTIFU" before example 20 is a typo obviously.


Thanks for the review!


Peter Saint-Andre