Re: [Stox] Extended WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04

Peter Saint-Andre <> Tue, 27 May 2014 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169131A0424 for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kX048esj7SH for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944781A0158 for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBD9540C58; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:51:39 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:51:38 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Stox] Extended WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:51:45 -0000

On 5/2/14, 2:16 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I took a look at this. Disclaimer: It's been a long time since the
> simple-chat work was done and I haven't been involved with it since. So
> maybe I have forgotten or missed something.
> Section 4:
> Both F4 and F5 are 200 OK messages! It appears that F5 is unintended -
> it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere.

Yes, that's an extraneous line.

> In a variety of places in the MSRP examples:
> The "gr=" URI parameter is used with sip URIs. It seems to be carrying
> nicknames. I don't know where that usage is coming from - it doesn't
> seem to come from draft-ietf-simple-chat-18. Should probably check with
> one of the authors of simple-chat about this.

We do talk about the GRUU mapping in the stox-core spec (now RFC 7247). 
Here the GRUU valies (MUC) are mapping resourceparts of full JIDs, which 
in XMPP Multi-User Chat also serve as nicknames.

So, for instance, this is a mere resourcepart for a user's connected device:

    Contact: <>;gr=balcony

Whereas this is a resourcepart functioning as a MUC nickname:;gr=Romeo

Preserving this information from the XMPP side of the gateway seems like 
a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), but I am not sure if a 
standard MSRP implementation would make use of the information. Checking 
with the authors of draft-ietf-simple-chat seems like a reasonable thing 
to do.

Saúl, what does your implementation do with the GRUU in both cases (mere 
resourcepart and MUC nickname)?