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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 03:13 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 AF22E1A1B35 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:28 -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 zEKjmMcNaoBP for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (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 EE3821A1BE8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id a13so1171911igq.0 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:23 -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 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/iGP+gWFPoNWQF/KLNCW/Bc9FwaqI4W3iwqYXqBEQNg=; b=e66u1zLQSAMc+6HP0PySAQ93GCf8+SRPS5I6nQMinuRTy/3eIRD01usMQe5o6cKOI/ Zu35HZv2ftnMYfIpMbXqi3lGVmsEWIo0wKf6QNLVB+R29PopVKuhqADUrcDvQOz87jnH VKnIDEIK57i+TVAF0UkPcMb9DeylgE8/Tnb/ne0SS3Hgrffq7gOoUchZCJhMuQ/OtyPG ExE0O/Xr6lpDePPFWzovsqHN7D4ppyrmVIORU2UyTi6ZuJpfhl4CiPBX6XbYZ7qlyRDx bt/Me3uIigYP5AkxahdSzWFiSdLvU8o4+TNGVqxccYXYal5mbKx3oGO+zUS3ZJFi267Y 4fHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkck0x2R2l8pxK3kP+RRhlc/VgKKB006Jt1eoDPmd3ZZxYzcnxqXDxP2++oY6b3ND4+aXgN
X-Received: by 10.50.176.196 with SMTP id ck4mr1413077igc.40.1423710803378; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:23 -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 l15sm1649261iod.33.2015.02.11.19.13.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DC1A52.8070401@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:13:22 -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/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@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>
In-Reply-To: <54DC16B3.2020205@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/CW7-mrhkNwiCritRI9-3a2polGI>
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:13:28 -0000

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).

###

Peter

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