Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-im-04.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 03 October 2013 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 C41F921F9E9D for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5711+6IlgGm6 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FA521F9C4C for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16967414CD; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:25:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <524CA1CD.2060301@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:44:29 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
References: <20130930215620.31558.59064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <524A7056.20900@gmail.com> <EBF04D25-027D-4C5C-BF14-0D51A215587D@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <EBF04D25-027D-4C5C-BF14-0D51A215587D@edvina.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: miconda@gmail.com, stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-im-04.txt
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 01:21:06 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hej Olle! Thanks for the feedback.

On 10/1/13 12:38 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> Hello, A few random notes:
> 
> - Call-ID examples always have a domain in the call id in this
> draft.

Also in the presence draft.

> As the Call-ID is just a random string, I would prefer either 
> hostname to follow the requirements to make it globally unique, or 
> just a random string. I do not want developers to believe that 
> attaching a domain is recommended behaviour.

Will fix throughout the document suite (the groupchat I-D has some
examples with Call-ID values that are not globally unique, such as
"711609sa").

> - Maybe some examples should include international character sets. 
> Julia says
> 
> "Jag kommer, Romeo! Din skål jag dricker!"
> 
> or Romeo:
> 
> "Om jag får sömnens smicker-öga tro, Så bådar drömmen mig en 
> fröjdfull nyhet."
> 
> This is still plain text, but not ASCII...

Not knowing Swedish, I usually use Czech for my examples. :-) But you
make a good point, and I always like to include non-ASCII examples
wherever possible.

> Table2: (But maybe this is back to core) - Translation of r-uri to 
> to: header thus overriding the To: header is something worth 
> discussing, if it hasn't been discussed yet. The SIP To: header is 
> the original destination of the message, and the R-uri is the
> current target.

Yes, I think that belongs in the core I-D.

> Additional notes:
> 
> - A SIP MESSAGE can fork. The draft doesn't mention that,
> something that may have impact on implementations. There's a JID on
> one side - but a forking address on the other side of this spec. -
> A SIP MESSAGE can be delivered inside of a dialog and outside of a
> dialog. Inside of a dialog is maybe out of scope for this draft,
> but in that case the remote target will be a contact address, maybe
> even a GRUU.

Hmm, and here I thought we might be able to discuss forking only in
the media I-D. But I think you're right that we need to discuss it
here, too. What specification has the best coverage of forking? Or is
this part of the "oral tradition" in the SIP community?

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=yqXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----