Re: [Stox] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-presence-00

Peter Saint-Andre <> Fri, 26 July 2013 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47ED21F9929 for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.729
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnUhrrkmKv8V for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE00921F9130 for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E67F40042; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:57:39 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:55:37 +0200
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Lundberg <>
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] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-presence-00
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:55:47 -0000

On 7/26/13 4:50 PM, Michael Lundberg wrote:

> One clarifying question: when you say "if the SIP implementation
> supports the namespace", do you mean the XMPP-to-SIP gateway or the
> SIP user agent?
>> Good question.  It would be benificial if both supported the
>> namespace, but only the gateway is probably required to.  If the
>> client supports the namespace, then the gateway would just need to map
>> between the elements described in this document.
>> If the client doesn't support the namespace, the gateway would most
>> likely need to do an additional translation into a namespace the
>> client does understand.  In this case, the values might not be the
>> same between the two namespaces, and therefore things are 'lost' in
>> translation. This is one of the big issues with presence mapping today
>> as many implementations have thier own implementation specific
>> namespace, which makes it hard to map between different
>> implementations.  Both the implementation specific and common
>> namespaces could coexist, where the implementation specific namespace
>> is used for internal communication and a common, standard namespace
>> (e.g., 'jabber:client' ) is used when communicating between different
>> implementations.

Yes, I think that makes sense. I'm not sure exactly how to translate
that into text (especially the part about proprietary / non-standard
namespaces), but I'll work something up for consideration by the list.


Peter Saint-Andre