Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 28 April 2016 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A068E12D6DA; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BvzRYAHxNifP; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15F9D12D79F; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.18] (cpe-70-119-246-39.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.246.39]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u3SEJdak072667 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:19:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-246-39.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.246.39] claimed to be [10.0.1.18]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:19:40 -0500
Message-ID: <B6D0869C-3E60-425E-827F-66A6BD8C6DA8@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <57221AA1.5000609@stpeter.im>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> <BD08A7FA-9722-4444-B5B7-3640D4AC2D56@nostrum.com> <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> <57221AA1.5000609@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/U45kW_f-a-8ljA2g-uozb84FNRk>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:19:45 -0000

On 28 Apr 2016, at 9:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 3/20/16 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> A further thought...
>>
>> On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP
>>>>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway follows 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A 
>>>>>> gateway
>>>>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it 
>>>>>> chooses
>>>>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and 
>>>>>> vice-versa).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, 
>>>>> but I
>>>>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP
>>>>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. :-)
>>>>
>>>> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model or the
>>>> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" subscription
>>> model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and a SIP
>>> subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have an
>>> ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the
>>> subscription is long lived, and the presence session is relatively
>>> ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence of an
>>> entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription is 
>>> ephemeral.
>>>
>>> So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP 
>>> subscriber
>>> authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a SIP
>>> subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions of 
>>> either
>>> side.
>>
>> That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch in
>> models.
>
> I propose to add the following paragraph to the introduction:
>
>    Although specifications for both SIP and XMPP use the term
>    "subscription", the term is employed in different ways.  In SIP, a
>    "subscription" is the mechanism whereby a subscriber requests
>    presence notifications from the contact over a relatively short
>    period of time, renewed as necessary to keep receiving presence
>    notifications.  By contrast, in XMPP a "subscription" is 
> essentially
>    shorthand for a long-lived presence authorization.  To prevent
>    confusion, this document uses the term "notification request" for
>    SIP subscriptions and the term "presence authorization" for XMPP
>    subscriptions.
>

Hi Peter,

I think this is on the right track. But I'm afraid SIP people might 
confuse "notification request" with "NOTIFY request", i.e. the NOTIFY 
message itself.

To put things is SIP terms, would "subscription dialog" or "notification 
dialog" work? (Or maybe just "dialog"?)

> Then modify the rest of the document accordingly.
>
> I started making these changes last night and will post a revised I-D 
> either today or tomorrow.
>
> Peter