[Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Sun, 01 February 2015 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FC81A1B14 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 t7SirmHIYCPo for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB72D1A1AAB for <stox@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957CC20431 for <stox@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:09:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:09:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; s=mesmtp; bh=PdeX7+rT41sw19fwK L4/hUFiCss=; b=cribi1B7Px3BgGGToN+zEEb6Br6Iy7PSa291xOUH3fhhPAdZ/ hBkqvDHZrpm9CT6c1O16MeOXI0aVVcLyOvwOguXyqUORMboD1sLAQRYF10+WBl5K o7TQuicrY4eRXcdis2kPI/gQFoF95fQ1x3VY8ZW/7BLUEyoYvRVv4WaFw0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=PdeX7+rT41sw19fwKL4/hUFiCss=; b=FDE ofxRS6nSpY44pXkxaFtNN+piyfZBIzAGlhGIceJ9iY19K8MtyzQV9lIxnGLmEqUM Ypr8OHMXYcirwxs80mhXgs81hLJp/r1K+NV6xqhgc0D4vZfQLS3sT8EmpJjBWDOu FPnZ9vknRO661Qrfl6lSHeDOvLT6RRJx38e76VEg=
X-Sasl-enc: Nw4NAM7TxNkEhq/Miti/4rJ4qsJjjr7i+XMwSYB9iO8X 1422749359
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF590C0028A for <stox@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:09:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <48B4925F-747B-4453-AF7F-3B1E9505A549@cooperw.in>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:18 -0800
To: stox@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/foGk-Rs7rSW_9MeulpUTvzuH02g>
Subject: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10
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: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:09:22 -0000

I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC, along with the -chat and -groupchat drafts. Overall the document appears in good shape. I have a comment I’d like to discuss before proceeding to IETF LC, along with an editorial nit to be addressed with any LC comments. 

You will note some commonality across my comments on all three drafts. In general, these drafts could do a better job of precisely specifying what is minimally required (normatively) for interoperability, versus what is optional or likely to differ between implementations. I think if at least the syntax mappings are normatively specified that should be sufficient, but the authors and WG might want to consider doing another pass at these documents to see if they could be more clear about which protocol exchanges the various gateways must support for STOX to work at all, versus which ones are suggested or optional.

Comment:

To achieve minimal interoperability, I think the syntax mappings in Section 4 need to be MUST-level requirements rather than SHOULD. Or, if there are cases envisioned in which different implementations might map the elements differently, those should be explained. But I assume there are not.

Nit:

If GRUUs are generally not human-readable in use, I would suggest changing the ones in Section 4 to random identifiers.