Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Wed, 04 March 2015 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 752011ACE43; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544221ACC80 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7g2pbo5_ynXH for <xfilter-draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (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 DA36A1AC444 for <draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrp18 with SMTP id rp18so2505829iec.7 for <draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST)
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 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mqq/OtVeMIvOe/Un4pnrmMKMwkak+OcbcLf8KbdluUY=; b=C5cNyYSaxwSEfVHYBg0OYgRX1oE2Hv+9N+DLNflrIz1WBkle83b896xq6xQsW8+7Kq yMTn4cRVL1ypFZQPxQ9UD+NSpf0WR+n9HPfYMAG7MOIHoiDlLzOXUJ4wmyxsMd7XDeqs w8FXyRwniD/UWPSm1JoHZtYnB9/v7TKWrO43aEi0M+etVkLYp2vL/V4UuBirSSUb4nlx /4wlWD6uQgkHsNH6dBI9Mjpku1Af2KLddB7GXN3puAqIMjpCw0Flo9SybENYYn30pMK1 upfHM3YiPPTV4g3MRxQFbQWIcxm83DrRBynAr90ZNX8scTau57ax5fUcJfkOcQj3P6Cg esFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQns4lk3KGtVIHL871xm1yqR4aaC8P/ypEgewtbjWav4p0OMdmwFRxPv+s81oPtF2Pg0m4MV
X-Received: by 10.107.148.197 with SMTP id w188mr14793271iod.73.1425500024390; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k191sm3493262ioe.21.2015.03.04.12.13.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F76778.4040506@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:13:44 -0700
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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150302235734.3370.76833.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/cCbZmoL6RS0ick-nY48r27AB-sE>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:13:46 -0000

On 3/2/15 4:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- Section 4 --
>
>     stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
>     defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
>     'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
>     "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).
>
> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should
> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of
> something from 6121.

Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says:

    The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat
    session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact

> -- Section 8 --
> Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that.  This section
> say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does
> not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language
> tagging from one into the other.  Is that intentional?

I think it's an oversight.

> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say
> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.

That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text.

Peter