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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Fri, 13 February 2015 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 722E21A008A for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:06:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 tMt76BZob43L for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32C5E1A036D for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270602082B for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:06:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:06:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=7wM07I555VmTwH3kUBHK+SoCQ1U=; b=cgxtHr8y2ybUCVbm5gW77 5DoYjCzG6rXRalAkb9zJIsWa0Aj4qU0uuPKrh96BlfnGdXi8ikRLGrhCzx0kUMlg xOn2OWu0d2937Yud0OOt8M75LujsH45YQHHDdgx87IuK53Pl1ypMNAPVuO0Q5fc4 MraPImg8AaNMMtLBBoQ2jU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=7wM07I555VmTwH3kUBHK+So CQ1U=; b=YN+IoXJ8KmFZ20p+zFtHq7h23X918NV24D9awwCz/1WqGay9JySu8TB N/821jUbbssp9o3DFHhU+VUpxDBy7V17eReKv42OvJR8mtJsVWdAqN804v6riu1o yE5UaeVxiWAv8++HD+oO5YUl4j+v0vgwh74Z26uYFdYOcMZ3gW0Y=
X-Sasl-enc: McueCiLIM2Ahf5zmVQgpeiJYthpOcVGp4TUykyCsn+rv 1423868777
Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-114.cisco.com (unknown [171.68.20.114]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9F1656801F6; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <54DC1A52.8070401@andyet.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:06:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EDB02F9-7BB8-46D8-A58B-43F8C76DF22F@cooperw.in>
References: <0C205FB7-2C6B-4773-830F-B8354CC65A75@cooperw.in> <54CFA75F.2040605@andyet.net> <31B110BC-C8B0-48B0-BD24-2F7F7DCA1ED6@cooperw.in> <54DC16B3.2020205@andyet.net> <54DC1A52.8070401@andyet.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/BdIavrdMY5w8AXrZFwaZXMR3hD4>
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 23:06:39 -0000

On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:

> On 2/11/15 7:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 2/9/15 4:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
>>> <peter@andyet.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> = Section 7 = Is all of the delivery report behavior meant to be
>>>>> entirely optional to support, or should there be some normative
>>>>> requirements listed in this section?
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO this is entirely optional (as with Section 6).
>>> 
>>> I think the difference between Section 6 and Section 7 is that Section
>>> 6 at least gives a little narrative description of how to do the
>>> mapping for composing notifications, whereas in Section 7 there is no
>>> such description, it’s just illustrated by examples. So I would
>>> suggest adding a sentence or two that generically describes what the
>>> gateway in each direction should do to map an MSRP REPORT to an XMPP
>>> message receipt request/response and vice versa. This is obviously a
>>> small thing but seems like good practice. This can be dealt with
>>> during IETF LC.
>> 
>> Yes, I see your point. Will add.
> 
> Here is proposed text.
> 
> ###
> 
>   An XMPP Message Receipts element of <request
>   xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/> is to be mapped to an MSRP Success-Report
>   header field with a value of "yes", and an XMPP Message Receipts
>   element of <received xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/> is to be mapped to
>   an MSRP REPORT request.
> 
>   A Success-Report header field with a value of "yes" in an MSRP SEND
>   request is to be mapped to an XMPP Message Receipts element of
>   <request xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/>, and an MSRP REPORT request is
>   to be mapped to an XMPP message containing only a Message Receipts
>   element of <received xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/>.
> 
>   There are no other suggested mappings (e.g., for the MSRP Failure-
>   Report header field).
> 
> ###

Thanks, this looks good.
Alissa

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