Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-core

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 11 February 2014 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 5BAC81A050B; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 W_c4gYjwSYu3; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE451A0308; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [24.8.129.242]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B77C4032A; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:51:35 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <52FA4707.30808@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:51:35 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <52F94DF0.1030505@stpeter.im> <52F96AA8.2010408@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <52F96AA8.2010408@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-core
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:51:39 -0000

On 2/10/14, 5:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 2/10/14, 3:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Pete, you wrote:
>>
>>    Section 4 is (nicely) clear on the document architecturally
>>    describing a gateway. However, traditionally a gateway is
>>    transparent to the entity that communicates with it: When we
>>    had SMTP-to-X.400 gateways, the gateway appeared as just another
>>    SMTP system that noticed special qualities of the address and
>>    then routed the messages appropriately.
>>
>> Your "traditionally" sounds like an SMTP phenomenon. In XMPP, we don't
>> have intermediate transfer agents, and XMPP servers are designed to use
>> add-on modules for additional functionality. So in the XMPP universe it
>> makes sense for the operator of an XMPP service to install a module (in
>> addition to the XMPP server) that performs the gateway function (we
>> often call this a connection manager).
>>
>>    Section 5 describes
>>    something a bit different. It's not clear that what section 5
>>    describes actually is part of the gateway, but rather sounds
>>    like a combined server which does failover between the
>>    protocols. I don't think this is a showstopper, but it might
>>    help implementers significantly if you described in section 5
>>    *where* in the model this function occurs. Right now, it
>>    sounds like the server itself does the addressing failover,
>>    not the gateway.
>>
>> Yes, I see your point. This kind of thing is quite likely implementation
>> specific (e.g., when the add-on XMPP-to-SIP gateway module gets
>> configured into and trusted by the core XMPP server, it might get added
>> into an event listener for core stanza delivery if an XMPP lookup fails
>> for the remote domain). Let me look at what text might be useful here.
>
> How is this for proposed text?
>
>     Existing SIP and XMPP server implementations do not typically include
>     the ability to communicate using the other technology (XMPP for SIP
>     implementations, SIP for XMPP implementations).  One common
>     architectural pattern is to associate a gateway with the core server
>     implementation (e.g., in XMPP such a gateway might be called a
>     "connection manager").  How exactly such a gateway interacts with the
>     core server to complete tasks such as address lookups and
>     communication with systems that use the other technology is a matter
>     of implementation (e.g., the gateway might be an add-on module that
>     is trusted by the core server to act as a fallback delivery mechanism
>     if the remote domain does not support the server's native
>     communication technology).

Pete, that text is now in draft-ietf-stox-core-10.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/