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

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Mon, 12 September 2016 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8CD12B1DB for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kO3iX8iCHfpV for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A88C12B1E0 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3552814AC05D; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:42:33 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4CA0D0E-0E57-4E86-9BF5-CDDBA8C71F3F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:42:44 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Peter Saint-Andre <>
Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-09.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:42:40 -0000

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

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.


Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects