Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a
>> question for you to consider...
>>
>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of
>> a GONE message in XMPP.  Any thoughts on having this document suggest
>> possible values for such timers?  Not sure if that makes sense for
>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask.
> 
> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For

That is what I figured.

> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following
> for MSRP-related timers:
> 
>    If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-
>    Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a
>    timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take
>    action if a success report is not received in this time.  There is no
>    universal value for this timer.  For many IM applications, it may be
>    2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second.
>    Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has
>    not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD
>    inform the user.
> 
> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one
> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State
> Notifications) states the following about the <gone/> state:
> 
>    User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system,
>    or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes).
> 
> The relevant contrast here is with the <inactive/> state:
> 
>    User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an
>    intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes).
> 
> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of
> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers.

I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment.  It's up to you
and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile.

Thanks for the quick response!

Regards,
Brian