Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 3/4/15 1:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- Section 4 --
>>
>>     stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
>>     defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
>>     'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
>>     "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).
>>
>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should
>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of
>> something from 6121.
>
> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says:
>
>     The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat
>     session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact
>
>> -- Section 8 --
>> Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that.  This section
>> say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does
>> not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language
>> tagging from one into the other.  Is that intentional?
>
> I think it's an oversight.
>
>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say
>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.
>
> That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text.

How about this:

    Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode
    characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the
    language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang'
    attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header).  Gateways MUST
    map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the
    original message.  Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation"
    [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.

Peter