Re: [Stox] My review on draft-ietf-stox-7284bis

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Tue, 17 March 2015 22:36 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 413211A1BBD for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2DTlAmdzAvB4 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) (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 F30C21A1BB3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iegc3 with SMTP id c3so24282562ieg.3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=u1Iis2lh4z1i+ZeHhKLgUf5hI3GUQCEzRR55o3bqg7c=; b=fDEUsuGRGz19sHNskAlpI9b5Ekqcr8uR8SWuOsPAJxqMUqqmdiINDzn6WTPraQrRj2 7gNehwTj1IwpOw1eLgbzzfBqCrxhQkSSefkFxF/hXrfj5rGcHxJgJBFlCzgt0kYDLOSn VacgvG57cmSuqWceSJK/v4fiE++ilhZpPvCgK2jNcONIw4JWuzZniJy2dpm/LTe1ktd3 Ss7ClhjxbRZzTbdYVTCVNlafwGSzGBaM64JNYyUTO8dv61ZUWx58uN5/CBA7SUJeZCJl G3hT59vyOAfTRRF0OIztDED95cdMLtC8NnwKW5JFVt3e9PFpoe9lcrq96Njp6ucPs0Ei 9eSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn72Mp2BXjLuz+5dwpbGe6gsMR5oWZRFMDibNz4D1bPrVA9nyNPmSUtGQK6XXcqye5C1YDg
X-Received: by 10.107.128.226 with SMTP id k95mr37310963ioi.73.1426631781310; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm294997igl.13.2015.03.17.15.36.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5508AC63.7020405@andyet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:36:19 -0600
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: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>, stox@ietf.org
References: <AFA60318-E0A3-4BA2-BCFB-FD0F0685E44D@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFA60318-E0A3-4BA2-BCFB-FD0F0685E44D@ag-projects.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/aGyoG3MFZtFremrhOzZ7X0AtZTE>
Subject: Re: [Stox] My review on draft-ietf-stox-7284bis
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:36:23 -0000

Hi Saúl, thanks for the review.

On 3/13/15 10:04 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi Peter and all!
>
> So, review time!
>
> Sec 4.2.1
>
> Not sure if this was discussed (memory is fuzzy right now), but that
> diagram feels a bit odd. The SIP Server + S2X gateway entity gets SIP
> traffic but responds with XMPP replies. In practice, there would only
> be a X2S entity in that scenario, because the subscription started on
> the XMPP side. The X2S gateway would do the translation, and the SIP
> server knows nothing about XMPP.

Yes, I think that makes more sense and will adjust the diagrams and 
flows accordingly.

> Example 2:
>
> Maybe add a To header?

Yes.

> Example 4:
>
> From and To tags don’t match those of the SUBSCRIBE / 200 OK, but the
> CallID does.

Good catch - the From and To need to be consistent.

> Section 4..2.3
>
> Same as above, looks weird that the S2X gateway generated the XMPP
> response without ever getting the request.

Agreed.

> Example 8:
>
> The SUBSCRIBE needs to be in-dialog, so From and To tags need to
> match, and so does the Call-ID. Also the CSeq would need to be
> higher. Maybe put 100, thus implying that there have been a bunch of
> NOTIFY requests already.

WFM.

> Section 4.3.1
>
> Opposite of my 2 other comments :-) Maybe I’m super confused today or
> we can have a quick chat / call next week to go over it?

Right: here again we'd pull out the S2X gateway from the XMPP service 
deployment.

> Example 10:
>
> Missing To header
>
> Example 14:
>
> Call-ID missmatch
>
> Example 16:
>
> The SUBSCRIBE must be in-dialog, same problem as Example 8.

Noted, will fix those three.

> Section 4.3.3
>
> Point 2 it’s not very clear to me, upon receiving the SUBSCRIBE
> request with Expires 0, there is no need to send it again.

This is from the XMPP server (via the gateway), not from the SIP user to 
the XMPP user, in order to cancel the subscription in the other 
direction from what's shown in Example 16. Do you feel this isn't necessary?

> Example 18:
>
> Maybe we need to mention that the XMPP resource can contain unicode
> and xs:ID is ASCII only?

This is covered in RFC 7247, but a pointer to that spec can't hurt.

> Point 5: To terminate the subscription from the notifier side, a
> NOTIFY with Subscription-State: terminated is sent, not a SUBSCRIBE
> with Expires 0, that is used from the subscriber side.

I think that's right.

> Example 22:
>
> A presence probe was a one-off presence request, right? If so, the
> CSeq should be 1, since this would be a new dialog. Also, missing To
> header.

Yes.

> Example 23:
>
> Same as above.

OK.

Thanks for the feedback!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/