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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 04 March 2015 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 074D51A00C3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 e7Y4tMbwryVd; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (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 BDFB01A009B; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so21881766lbi.13; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+WjDV7C8ybI+cYYGDpWXMtVEc1+e1b49+U7gqBJEago=; b=C+Sg0x6G6AIVb/EfUkaw2xU7Mt24HP+PqFcAziBV9sDNEsubFptWGUAEM/X3lNX5ov 8vTne3MKvTeDJWpYkusAGtmTePVR+chNtZ1kXCIq8dv6p9IDEAaCZpqdGsttDoNtyukR WICy2x66ItiJ8B4ennHn+Xe0dZtxDQ233MIe27ie8MeO23xmF9+gyuV49Pyf8cZ6/rfh u5L7EVrLWH6sWR3/+BdVEfYYh1hdTLkgOdwQDNNfFMTYgK69Qung6VWlAGa7htcpyeYX soyxWhPBJlftOyCyHn+pF6lJHFs4+o4648AM+975+SrDLzMuyk1SA+wvQpOxh6Y/078+ AfTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr5295305lbb.119.1425512362302; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:39:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net>
References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net> <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:39:22 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: zvQkngl0S-AGmXcoVEVqKMD51-4
Message-ID: <CALaySJKE6U87A=5dFkN0HmHUFSrn1Tt72BVecVJ+U6y-gsxUqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" <peter@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/Kb35YcPwg2-uxngFLSntZW_DoM8>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, Yana Stamcheva <yana@jitsi.org>, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, stox-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:39:25 -0000

>>>     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