Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Mon, 20 October 2014 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.com>
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 08B7B1ACF24 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=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 nhOAGl4NWsKq for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D850A1ACF19 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.99.53] (i19025.upc-i.chello.nl [62.195.19.25]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D14714AC00E; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:51:19 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B19B7C60-E590-40EE-8E4D-4E9E8C957FFC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <5440748C.606@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:51:14 +0200
Message-Id: <B59EC836-A4BC-44FA-8202-3039526F19BF@ag-projects.com>
References: <20141010051523.13935.37841.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5437D74B.3090001@andyet.net> <0BE57976-EDFC-4BA6-B79E-91917DF1C458@ag-projects.com> <5440748C.606@andyet.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/Zdws6sm91wJx1PNhkumCVQB2Ff0
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-06.txt
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: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:51:26 -0000

On 17 Oct 2014, at 03:44, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:

> On 10/15/14, 2:57 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> 
>> We have been using “SIP-to-XMPP” and “XMPP-to-SIP” all along, but now
>> some sections make the distinction and a new "XMPP-to-MSRP” thing
>> appears. Do we want to make this distinction all across or just in
>> the architecture section? For the purpose of gatewaying, SIP and MSRP
>> go together, even if technically they can be different entities. To
>> be clear, the only thing that sounds a bit weird to me is
>> “XMPP-to-MSRP”.
> 
> Hi Saúl, thanks for the feedback!
> 
> Section 4 currently has the following paragraph:
> 
>   These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
>   in the same physical entity; e.g., the SIP conference focus and MSRP
>   switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC service
>   and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed code.
> 
> I propose that we change it to:
> 
>   These are logical entities, and several of them might be co-located
>   in the same physical entity.  For example, the SIP conference focus
>   and MSRP switch and associated gateways, or the XMPP server and MUC
>   service and associated gateways, might be part of the same deployed
>   code.  In addition, it is likely that an XMPP service would not have
>   separate gateways for XMPP-to-SIP translation and XMPP-to-MSRP
>   translation, but would instead have a single gateway.
> 
> I agree with you that the concept of a dedicated gateway from XMPP to MSRP seems strange. In particular, I somewhat doubt that, in practice, an XMPP server would separately resolve the hostname of the MSRP switch (as described in Section 6.2 of RFC 4975) and send MSRP traffic over a separate connection; instead, in practice I think it would piggyback the MSRP traffic over its connection to the conference focus, which it would already be using for SIP traffic. However, for the sake of a clear description I think it is best to keep the logical entities and protocols separate from the physical implementation and deployment, as we have done in the latest version of the -groupchat document. The modified paragraph above covers the matter in enough depth that a smart implementer could figure it out.
> 

Agreed! LGTM.


--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects