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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 513C31A8FD5 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:02:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 mKp2Ie0gZ8Wt for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538721A901E for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t1C52TCB058113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:02:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F78467A6-DE6B-475C-983E-ED4F3AA615D2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DC2354.6080309@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:02:28 -0600
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 445410148.354943-d9c422c354139cb499026a8bcf31d4a1
Message-Id: <6E47F7E8-F809-486E-93F6-A93B6F889260@nostrum.com>
References: <71D99F08-87C8-4E4A-9DC3-2DC3C2991B1B@cooperw.in> <54CFACEA.1040304@andyet.net> <F93B50AE-EDB0-4111-8CC6-1724BB4CDC1E@nostrum.com> <54D55765.7050000@andyet.net> <FE21FF93-5980-442F-A9FE-EC5EA9FCFBDE@nostrum.com> <ED13BDE2-1E78-41C9-92AD-1416E113418F@nostrum.com> <54DC2354.6080309@andyet.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/H6svRVg38T-elS1UaTtZsaZk9so>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-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 05:02:37 -0000

> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2/9/15 4:01 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> (Alissa pointed out that I left the STOX list of of these--resending.)
>> 
>> One more thing: The SIP CSeq headers are incorrect in several places. CSeq is missing from most SIP messages, except in BYE requests.
>> 
>> (This is also true for stox-chat. I will send notes on that separately.)
> 
> See clarifying question in the stox-chat thread.

See answer in same.

> 
>>>> On 2/6/15 4:34 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>> (No hats)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Peter and Alissa,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I just reviewed version groupchat-09, and it looks good. I just noticed a few nits:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 4: The bulleted text for example.org and chat.example.org don't seem to quite match the figure. The figure calls both the focus and switch chat.example.org (which may not be what you want.  Example.org is a SIP proxy.
> 
> Correct. This is better:
> 
>   o  example.org -- a SIP proxy with an associated signaling gateway
>      ("S2X GW") to XMPP.
> 
>   o  chat.example.org -- a SIP-based conference focus and MSRP switch
>      with an associated gateway ("M2X GW") to XMPP.

Agreed.

> 
>>>>> 5.1: The indented paragraph about MSRP URLs could be interpreted to mean that the explicit port is only required for a literal address. In fact, it's always required.
> 
> How's this?
> 
>      There is no direct mapping for the MSRP URIs.  In fact MSRP URIs
>      identify a session of instant messages at a particular device;
>      they are ephemeral and have no meaning outside the scope of that
>      session.  The authority component of the MSRP URI here MUST
>      contain the XMPP-to-MSRP gateway hostname or numeric IP address
>      (as well as, in accordance with [RFC4975], an explicit port
>      number).
> 

WFM