Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-09.txt

[Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>]

Review time!

Page 10: " As described in Section 6
, the XMPP-to-SIP gateway also generates a
   presence notification addressed to the XMPP user:
“

Should we say “if the NOTIFY contains a body” or is it obvious enough? It’s possible the SIP user is offline, but the XMPP is user is already authorised, so the NOTIFY will contain Subscription-State: active, but no body.

Page 11: "As can be seen, because SIMPLE does not
   have a construct that enables a contact to cancel her presence
   authorization,”

There is: remove the user from the corresponding XCAP rule.  Next time presence is requested, it will be denied.  (the SUBSCRIBE dialog still needs to be terminated though).

Page 14: example 10

Since the Content-Length is 0, maybe omit Content-Type?

Page 15: flow example

Add a NOTIFY with state as “pending” before sending the subscribe stanza to the XMPP server?

Page 19: [RFC6121] defines how XMPP

Missing RFC link?

Page 27: " As described in [RFC3856
], this cancels any notification dialog but
   causes a NOTIFY to be sent to the subscriber, just as a presence
   probe does (the transformation rules for presence notifications have
   been previously described in
Section 6.2 of this document).”

A probe would be implemented as a new SUBSCRIBE dialog with expires 0, which does’t cancel all other dialogs.  So while the mechanism is the same, using a *new* SUBSCRIBE request with Expires: 0 would just be a probe, not a cancellation.

General note: the examples with "<show xmlns='jabber:client'>away</show>” lack the XML namespace declaration for “jabber”.


These are all quite minor things, I think we are good to go for WGLC after small fixes for those.


Cheers!

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects