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

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

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