Re: [Stox] review: stox-im-03

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 25 September 2013 02:18 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 2A4EF11E81A6 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.829
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, 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 yCpmjh1g7J5D for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F00711E81A4 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 115FD415F4; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:23:09 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <524247D5.4040406@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:17:57 -0600
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: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
References: <2B9B48179856DC4FA00C93C79EB7E64A2A443A@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <5241882B.6000203@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <5241882B.6000203@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stox] review: stox-im-03
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, 25 Sep 2013 02:18:09 -0000

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

Here is proposed text for placement at the end of Section 4
("Interdomain Federation") in the -core document:

   Because [RFC6120] specifies a binding of XMPP to TCP, a gateway from
   SIP to XMPP will need to support TCP as the underlying transport
   protocol.  By contrast, as specified in [RFC3261], either TCP or UDP
   can be used as the underlying transport for SIP messages, and a given
   SIP deployment might support only UDP; therefore, a gateway from XMPP
   to SIP might need to communicate with a SIP service using either TCP
   or UDP.

Peter

On 9/24/13 6:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Oh, and this text probably belongs in the -core document, I
> think...
> 
> On 9/24/13 6:37 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Peter
>> 
>> 
>> --Original message--- Sender: "Peter Saint-Andre"
>> <stpeter@stpeter.im> Time: Tue Sep 24 15:35:00 EEST 2013 Cc:
>> stox@ietf.org, Subject: Re: [Stox] review: stox-im-03
>> 
>> On 9/24/13 12:02 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>>> On 9/24/13 2:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Hi Sal, thanks for
>>> the review.
>> 
>>> On 9/20/13 4:42 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> my only comments is about the fact that section 3. XMPP
>>>>>> to SIP implies that the MESSAGE is always (and maybe can
>>>>>> only be) delivered over a TCP connection; RFC3428 states
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whenever possible, MESSAGE requests SHOULD be sent over 
>>>>>> transports that implement end-to-end congestion control,
>>>>>> such as TCP or SCTP. However, SIP does not provide a
>>>>>> mechanism to prevent a downstream hop from sending a
>>>>>> request over UDP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> so you can delivery it over UDP as well and that has
>>>>>> also being raised in a previous thread while talking on
>>>>>> the Call-ID mapping to <thread/>. Actually you will be
>>>>>> forced to deliver over UDP if the SIMPLE server only
>>>>>> supports UDP.
>>> It's not clear to me why the XMPP-to-SIP gateway couldn't 
>>> communicate with the SIMPLE server over UDP. Which text in
>>> Section 3 do you think implies that only TCP connections are
>>> supported?
>>>> there is not text at all, and that is the problem. When I
>>>> read the Section 3 and the example I got the impression that
>>>> I can only use TCP to forward the message on the SIP side but
>>>> maybe it is only me!
>> 
>> I doubt it is only you. :-)
>> 
>> Because there is no such thing as XMPP over UDP, the gateway from
>> SIP to XMPP will need to communicate over TCP. However, I see no
>> reason why the gateway from XMPP to SIP could not be "smart" and
>> send SIP messages over TCP or UDP depending on what the far SIP
>> server supports. I'll work to add some clarifying text on these
>> points.
>> 
>> Peter
-----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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=Y5pc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----