Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

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

On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: 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-chat/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a
>>> question for you to consider...
>>>
>>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of
>>> a GONE message in XMPP.  Any thoughts on having this document suggest
>>> possible values for such timers?  Not sure if that makes sense for
>>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask.
>>
>> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For
>
> That is what I figured.
>
>> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following
>> for MSRP-related timers:
>>
>>     If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-
>>     Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a
>>     timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take
>>     action if a success report is not received in this time.  There is no
>>     universal value for this timer.  For many IM applications, it may be
>>     2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second.
>>     Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has
>>     not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD
>>     inform the user.
>>
>> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one
>> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State
>> Notifications) states the following about the <gone/> state:
>>
>>     User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system,
>>     or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes).
>>
>> The relevant contrast here is with the <inactive/> state:
>>
>>     User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an
>>     intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes).
>>
>> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of
>> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers.
>
> I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment.  It's up to you
> and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile.

We might say something like this:

    It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that
    automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not
    sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time
    ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has
    not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for
    a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes).

Peter