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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 2, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>> = Section 7 = Is all of the delivery report behavior meant to be
>> entirely optional to support, or should there be some normative
>> requirements listed in this section?
> 
> IMHO this is entirely optional (as with Section 6).

I think the difference between Section 6 and Section 7 is that Section 6 at least gives a little narrative description of how to do the mapping for composing notifications, whereas in Section 7 there is no such description, it’s just illustrated by examples. So I would suggest adding a sentence or two that generically describes what the gateway in each direction should do to map an MSRP REPORT to an XMPP message receipt request/response and vice versa. This is obviously a small thing but seems like good practice. This can be dealt with during IETF LC.

Ben has sent comments on this draft and I’d like to see how that discussion resolves before issuing the IETF LC.

Thanks,
Alissa 

> 
>> = Section 4 = "The XMPP-to-SIP gateway at the XMPP server would then
>> initiate an MSRP session with Romeo on Juliet's behalf (since there
>> is no reliable way for the gateway to determine if Romeo's client
>> supports MSRP, it simply needs to guess).”
>> 
>> “Guessing” makes it sound like the gateway might use heuristics or
>> some such to determine whether to initiate an MSRP session, and that
>> in some cases it might not initiate a session. Would it be more
>> accurate to say that MSRP session initiation may yield an error since
>> there is no reliable way for the gateway to determine if Romeo's
>> client supports MSRP?
> 
> Yes, that's better.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/