Re: [Stox] Review on -presence
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Wed, 07 August 2013 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.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 7758D21F9CEA for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.787
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
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 H2N3Rbjyje02 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6130721F9CE2 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id BE201B35DB; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:54:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from imac.saghul.lan (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54723B0132; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:54:35 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <51FCC3C0.3040200@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 23:54:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3CB1F672-3F5F-407E-8AED-F6431A93F1A5@ag-projects.com>
References: <0CB65FBA-7262-4189-8852-5FC08A34D50D@ag-projects.com> <51F99063.30203@stpeter.im> <51FCC3C0.3040200@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review on -presence
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:54:55 -0000
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/1/13 12:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 7/30/13 5:33 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is my review of the -presence document: >>> >>> - Sec 3.3.2 suggests that if the subscription is maintained but we >>> have no presence state, a PIDF would be generated with a basic status >>> of closed, but what would be the tuple ID, if we don't know any >>> resource for this user anymore? > > Actually, in this scenario the gateway does know the status because the > XMPP user is still online -- it's just that the SIP user's subscription > to the XMPP user's status has expired. > >>> We could also send an empty NOTIFY, >>> which would achieve the same goal. >> >> The empty NOTIFY sounds more consistent with the spirit of SIP presence. > > I've looked into this further. Here is what I find in RFC 3856 (Section > 6.6.2): > > If the resource is not in a meaningful state, RFC 3265 [2] allows the > body of the initial NOTIFY to be empty. In the case of presence, > that NOTIFY MAY contain a presence document. This document would > indicate whatever presence state the subscriber has been authorized > to see; it is interpreted by the subscriber as the current presence > state of the presentity. For pending subscriptions, the state of the > presentity SHOULD include some kind of textual note that indicates a > pending status. > > And in RFC 3265: > > 3.1.6.2. Confirmation of Subscription Creation/Refreshing > > Upon successfully accepting or refreshing a subscription, notifiers > MUST send a NOTIFY message immediately to communicate the current > resource state to the subscriber. This NOTIFY message is sent on the > same dialog as created by the SUBSCRIBE response. If the resource > has no meaningful state at the time that the SUBSCRIBE message is > processed, this NOTIFY message MAY contain an empty or neutral body. > > Everything there is about an initial NOTIFY confirming a presence > subscription. However, Section 3.3.2 of the stox-presence spec discusses > what to do if the SIP user's subscription expires: > > It is the responsibility of the SIMPLE-XMPP gateway to properly > handle the difference between short-lived SIP presence subscriptions > and long-lived XMPP presence subscriptions. The gateway has two > options when the SIP user's subscription expires... > > It seems to me that there's a false assumption here, because in general > doesn't the SIP user agent initiate a refresh to maintain the > subscription (as long as it's online)? So I think there are two cases here: > Yep, you would usually refresh the subscription. > (1) SIP user agent is online and generates a refresh by re-subscribing. > In this case, the empty NOTIFY might make sense (although you could > argue that it's not truly an "initial NOTIFY"). > Yep, I think we could say that you MAY send an empty NOTIFY and compose and offline state tuple based on the previous state. > (2) SIP user agent goes offline and the subscription truly expires. In > this case, the handling we currently describe seems generally correct to me. > Yes. -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects
- [Stox] Review on -presence Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] Review on -presence Peter Saint-Andre