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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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

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