Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Tue, 21 October 2014 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 CF0341A8A9F for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 hhoUodFjG1iA for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A7A1A8A9D for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so1730151igc.0 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=io/SQJxhk37CBsulquGLNHTx8JQxJIRHhtELcK8Ll54=; b=UOssIEKN09ZjNQHbB46W7tSAur5MF630A0DfMzroaViG2jAFECbFYP5F3DegPWqz5f o1yJjubeChPvJjUbyzH/68S1r9SSHjiipSz8ojAMGmxDMFPqabsLtGm4R6dJkuI4Xoa1 xKp1YAwAa1qzbWDHShbznXilGPWpBbmL9s/VxRK8DNAbyqqbzzMdULttKH93k2q1IYDY AwdBQor/mvQVfMg82gAuLG5CUCYkCLjpYdvkvQP8rn3Oh9eQX00dZcqmn7VWUb9PPxWi 39eRL6bGVKcrr8TJXmTVmVT35J2OTdhREkhznw2ZKhiaxQxIsc5re8P7U2bWrFXN59TW avxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrF1k05NyB2zlFGbpTJhbHFcbeQv42y3KXh6vPHjtq0JhyAaoJaZY+IgDITRFZaihwPmPg
X-Received: by 10.42.21.19 with SMTP id i19mr34777818icb.37.1413909913328; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm6281602ioe.44.2014.10.21.09.45.12 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54468D96.6030809@andyet.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:45:10 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?windows-1252?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> <5440748C.606@andyet.net> <B59EC836-A4BC-44FA-8202-3039526F19BF@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <B59EC836-A4BC-44FA-8202-3039526F19BF@ag-projects.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/T8o2zpW4KANCVC0hm2ypCehYfJ8
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt
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, 21 Oct 2014 16:45:17 -0000

On 10/20/14, 3:51 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
>
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:44, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
>>
>>> We have been using “SIP-to-XMPP” and “XMPP-to-SIP” all along, but now
>>> some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP” thing
>>> appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in
>>> the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP
>>> go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To
>>> be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is
>>> “XMPP-to-MSRP”.
>>
>> Hi Saúl, thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> Section 4 currently has the following paragraph:
>>
>>    These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
>>    in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP
>>    switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service
>>    and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code.
>>
>> I propose that we change it to:
>>
>>    These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
>>    in the same physical entity.  For example, the SIP conference focus
>>    and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC
>>    service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed
>>    code.  In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have
>>    separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP
>>    translation, but would instead have a single gateway.
>>
>> I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch (as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart implementer could figure it out.
>>
>
> Agreed! LGTM.

Great. I'll submit a revised I-D sometime soon. :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/