Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>>>     stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
>>>     defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
>>>     'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
>>>     "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).
>>>
>>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should
>>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of
>>> something from 6121.
>>
>> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says:
>>
>>     The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat
>>     session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact

Ah, OK.  Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant
messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be
clearer to me (though maybe this is just me).  With the long clause
there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121".  Anyway, minor
thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think
right.

>>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say
>>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.
...
> How about this:
>
>    Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode
>    characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the
>    language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang'
>    attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header).  Gateways MUST
>    map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the
>    original message.  Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation"
>    [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.

That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks.  Thanks.

Barry