Re: [Stox] Post-WGLC review: draft-ietf-stox-im-06

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 22 January 2014 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 691451A03CF for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 5fIDxZRSkJ-B for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F5F1A03B6 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-vpn-client-10-89-0-179.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A07B40067; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:44:01 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <52E01171.3060102@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:44:01 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stox@ietf.org
References: <CAHBDyN6YOZeFQ4RnOXNKkgeE1Tov9E08VAN0-Vi4USJ8j64BmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN6YOZeFQ4RnOXNKkgeE1Tov9E08VAN0-Vi4USJ8j64BmA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Stox] Post-WGLC review: draft-ietf-stox-im-06
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:44:04 -0000

Hi Mary, thanks for the review and my apologies for the delayed reply.

On 12/24/13 1:22 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> HI all,
> 
> I've reviewed the document and believe it's ready to progress with a
> couple of minor clarification/nit fixes required. 
> 
> - Section 1, 1st bullet.  RFC 3428 was not developed in the SIMPLE WG.
>  It was a product of the old SIP WG.  I would suggest to reword that
> bullet as follows:
>       Various extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol ([RFC3261])
>       for instant messaging,  including the MESSAGE method extension
> [RFC3428].

Agreed.

> - Related to my previous comment,  there shouldn't be any references to
> a SIMPLE-XMPP Gateway, which is used widely in the document, although
> there are some places where SIP-XMPP is used, which is more correct.
> 
> - All  occurrences of "SIMPLE Server" should be changed to "SIP Server" 

The reason we use the term SIMPLE here is that a base SIP server or
gateway would not necessarily have awareness of the instant messaging
extensions to SIP, and "SIMPLE server" is less wordy than "IM-aware SIP
server". But if the latter is more accurate then I'm happy to make that
change.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/