Re: [Stox] current status

Hi,

There have been no further comments on this, so I think we can declare it decided that we won't expand the scope of -core with topics like forking, but leave that to the -media to handle.

My proposed plan for the next steps of the WG is:

-          Before Vancouver: Issue WG Last Calls on -core, -im, and -presence and see if they indeed are mature enough to be delivered forward.

-          For Vancouver: Get updated versions of especially -media, and possibly -chat and -groupchat, and collect the open issues about them.

-          In Vancouver: Discuss the open issues about -media, and if needed -chat and -groupchat.

-          After Vancouver: Depending on the maturity and issues raised, schedule WG Last Calls for the remaining deliverables.

Let the chairs (Yana and me) know if you have issues with this plan or even better, suggestions how to improve it.

Markus

From: ext Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 September, 2013 19:43
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé; stox@ietf.org; Isomaki Markus (Nokia-CIC/Espoo)
Subject: Re: [Stox] current status

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im<mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/6/13 10:16 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 3:25 PM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com<mailto:Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>>
> <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com<mailto:Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There have been a fair number of comments on -core, -im and
>> -presence since the Berlin IETF. Please take a look at the new
>> versions http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-stox-core-04.txt
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-stox-im-02.txt
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-stox-presence-04.txt and see
>> if your issues have been properly addressed, and/or whether you
>> want to still raise any new issues.
>>
>> If nothing specific comes up, the chairs will consider starting
>> WG LC on these documents in the near future.
>>
>> One thing that I wonder about -core is whether it is a good idea
>> to stabilize or last call it yet at this point, since there have
>> been some issues raised about -media that might have impact to
>> -core, such as dealing with SIP side forking or loop detection.
>> So is it better to wait with -core until -media is more stable?
>>
>
> At some point we agreed that those issues would be handled in
> -media, because in other cases (chat, presence, im) the gateway is
> itself the endpoint and handles all the "media", so those didn't
> seem to apply.
That is my recollection, too.
 [MB] That was also what I thought when I reviewed -core. [/MB]

Thus I'd be in favor of stabilizing the -core spec, and hanlding the
forking issues in the -media spec.
[MB] I agree. [/MB]

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-----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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=6RTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
stox mailing list
stox@ietf.org<mailto:stox@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox