Re: [Stox] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-im-11

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 02:16 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 200A81A8A51 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:09 -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 Sp3yjlL2f-c4 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) (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 6D2F61A8A44 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl2so916801igb.5 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:05 -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=DRjkLh6/Ny0FfhSElTxdfYxjRNoEtZ9m5ba2/ND7+YM=; b=KGMAk9y3L05U7eE9ew4uGyRT5NC03CKcs30I1cllHEQhCUSxZJNwzN7O+qYMn1yQMr HWKsxDRuNWywHQyJYWQizMddsw8NT6d+2IRvrmQZABKpyD3X8ny0OFvGbYKyDh594dhe r75k3AEZZrZLke6p8BudR/O2QuIFGIkF360It0kQTGYHq/a5jOMONKJEDy9uUQDspjy8 /QCHBQWtBiq+/E2K06gfifjtFDOwKA/f9DtLtJqKJR58bPlxRMmMyNCRcyIykxJoBWNW pY3JLayX8oJk+RepJtYY9oIPqcsyzTXKygms7QfcKsM1xfw3cW1U67B3x0N7h+GrVyDi KTOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkD3Bso3ROolzvUc1Nl2G/A2omMCmgLDH7vxa2TUGAl0lfLqSMGNqxhjRsxA1svKZyIsdQx
X-Received: by 10.42.130.74 with SMTP id u10mr1525090ics.61.1423707365765; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:05 -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 e3sm338510igg.16.2015.02.11.18.16.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DC0CE3.8090405@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:16:03 -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: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <E77F1000-DD04-44E7-9636-348DA463E6E8@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <E77F1000-DD04-44E7-9636-348DA463E6E8@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/JS7zIhO5xZ2UW2rvFT8zByA7M-I>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-im-11
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 02:16:09 -0000

On 2/9/15 4:27 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> (No hats)
>
> Hi,
>
> (I apologize that these comments are late in the process. Please feel
> free to defer them to last call.)
>
> This version mostly looks good, but there are a few minor issues:
>
> -- Message Size
>
> It might be worth a discussion on message size limits (e.g. the SIP
> MESSAGE method limits the size to 1300 octets except under some
> pretty narrow circumstances.)

Thank you for pointing this out. I had glossed over it in my reading of 
RFC 3428. I think it deserves a section of its own in the -im document.

> -- Example 3:
>
> This example reverses the From and To in the SIP response (similar to
> the same issue for stox-chat.)

Will fix.

> --section 4, text right above table 1:
>
> The text references stox-chat for additional mappings. But stox-chat
> references this draft for the same reasons. I realize it's not really
> a circular reference, but I think it might confuse the reader.

Hmm. I think it would be best to put them all in the -im document.

> -- Security considerations
>
> I'm a little uncomfortable non-normatively saying we "prefer" the use
> of RFC3862. My strictly individual opinion is that we should make a
> normative recommendation, or merely point out the possibility of
> using 3862. (I realize we do this a lot with the "ought to"
> construct, but it seems like things like end-to-end crypto could
> benefit from a less vague approach.)

I would prefer to point out the possibility of using RFC 3862. Given 
that no one, to my knowledge, has implemented RFC 3923 in an XMPP 
client, I'd be uncomfortable making that a normative recommendation.

Peter

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