Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 970C112D99F; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JZNX2jeOk09x; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 AD96C12D9C3; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.18] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4PKPFMO036775 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 15:25:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.18]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:25:15 -0500
Message-ID: <002F8A7B-C85C-4814-BDFA-EA576F8B01E5@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <57460522.4030600@stpeter.im>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> <BD08A7FA-9722-4444-B5B7-3640D4AC2D56@nostrum.com> <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> <57221AA1.5000609@stpeter.im> <B6D0869C-3E60-425E-827F-66A6BD8C6DA8@nostrum.com> <29063029-3EC9-476A-A8CA-2EF7B6BA9984@stpeter.im> <57225AAF.8060007@stpeter.im> <FBCF24A9-9E39-4A6D-970D-49C6E0EFE4F9@nostrum.com> <57460522.4030600@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/eN496rK0qwSAINuMsWYBM2bz7mA>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 May 2016 20:25:22 -0000

On 25 May 2016, at 15:03, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Yes, I think it's ready to go. I can give it a once-over consistency 
> check first if you'd like, though.

Only if you think it needs it. Otherwise I will dive in shortly.

Thanks!

Ben.

>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
> On 5/25/16 1:55 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I'm catching up on some backlog. Is this version ready to go in your
>> opinion, or was there more work to do?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 13:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> I just submitted -08 to address this issue (and clean up some 
>>> related
>>> text and examples).
>>>
>>> On 4/28/16 10:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> Good point. I think "notification dialog" sounds right. I'm trying 
>>>> to
>>>> avoid the term "subscription"...
>>>>
>>>> Sent from mobile, might be terse
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 9:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/20/16 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>>>> A further thought...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a 
>>>>>>>>>>> SIP
>>>>>>>>>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway
>>>>>>>>>>> follows the
>>>>>>>>>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A
>>>>>>>>>>> gateway
>>>>>>>>>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it
>>>>>>>>>>> chooses
>>>>>>>>>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and
>>>>>>>>>>> vice-versa).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous 
>>>>>>>>>> comment,
>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the 
>>>>>>>>>> SIP
>>>>>>>>>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model 
>>>>>>>>> or the
>>>>>>>>> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, 
>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" 
>>>>>>>> subscription
>>>>>>>> model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and 
>>>>>>>> a SIP
>>>>>>>> subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have 
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the
>>>>>>>> subscription is long lived, and the presence session is 
>>>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>>>> ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence 
>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>> entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription 
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> ephemeral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP
>>>>>>>> subscriber
>>>>>>>> authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a 
>>>>>>>> SIP
>>>>>>>> subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> models.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose to add the following paragraph to the introduction:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Although specifications for both SIP and XMPP use the term
>>>>>>    "subscription", the term is employed in different ways.  In 
>>>>>> SIP, a
>>>>>>    "subscription" is the mechanism whereby a subscriber requests
>>>>>>    presence notifications from the contact over a relatively 
>>>>>> short
>>>>>>    period of time, renewed as necessary to keep receiving 
>>>>>> presence
>>>>>>    notifications.  By contrast, in XMPP a "subscription" is
>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>    shorthand for a long-lived presence authorization.  To prevent
>>>>>>    confusion, this document uses the term "notification request" 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>    SIP subscriptions and the term "presence authorization" for 
>>>>>> XMPP
>>>>>>    subscriptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is on the right track. But I'm afraid SIP people 
>>>>> might
>>>>> confuse "notification request" with "NOTIFY request", i.e. the
>>>>> NOTIFY message itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put things is SIP terms, would "subscription dialog" or
>>>>> "notification dialog" work? (Or maybe just "dialog"?)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then modify the rest of the document accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started making these changes last night and will post a revised
>>>>>> I-D either today or tomorrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter