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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Wed, 04 March 2015 23:18 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 4D7B31A005C for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 Lkq5SG2gYCe1 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) (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 6D9581A0054 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so71680847iec.8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:01 -0800 (PST)
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=Ts4bV9rmucP+BRUr/Ja+sPCy5gjtDcti0ZL15Kr8blo=; b=MWuf/ZIgcerVFQJ1SwLZpJQOPxH17JTw5LUbtEDDHAT/f8gqQgNlSnghPHfJ4ElOjE aweERX/pbrbOj6fQuOmnRoqb7popDmn2hlVp5z9wjZzIeeZ0you9+zId2AwHKN+Qv1xJ nhOoDcnTNB26BOlIlUBMPMpb9+xdXenWf5oteWtwChlOLVCsmGSgcxXvJVOPQHL72ve6 8wmV4IVt8Bi/jYrEbqz6rE/rOE9h44hg6ZQeAp6D5hVX2Prxk4VKI1tXpZuopmFVy22w QZcHLRilYEJP6j3Yva+/PAc810X7yPWQwCI2ENWjPu7sNIKnyp5q+D3LNIVV44U3qytv SSyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksm7LnLAdyRJ9nclhHGjj1kWLtvzs3GE3EV8gUcF1kFg1xf1303XBw/e2KnzodzLa8QbDt
X-Received: by 10.50.136.228 with SMTP id qd4mr43249298igb.13.1425511080884; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm3777203ioe.31.2015.03.04.15.17.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F792A6.8020005@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:17:58 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/WeE9WNVb_p-n3V2IxjL5h6MCTB8>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:18:03 -0000

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