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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 4F5AB1A00D8 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 lXe4pKkAqwBt for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:48:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (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 C0D1D1A1A74 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so77880203iec.8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=j42ZcRM0DQU9iCQQXycYtZCxFccCbzIkpUrZXtSnfcY=; b=Kc+noTyMCLoNucgJbxQj2Av80WNSCToghP7t2xwwZX9jsHIV2o0ZwCNEpjoD5NG5oU noMi5HV4kEyuirU9FBMqFqqUuvQihzkv3Pog5JeZWwlUIYVhHMTajLjby1gqLYe1+SQq ATpVWUvb+CskJ1/uwuQY0r7b+CUp52PPpl5r4ymC31cIvlyhE6dUpSAy2FvJZ5uMhisn Yjj690d26b2w+kTRT9/KixDDycW282QpeUtg8PG1QAoJKu/jAw+UVWPnZl1tV0y6AqMU /L429SDX55qZ0q0OB7PXSbqb7UnxDVVJYJib0nO2XyTIWtjyHaKgVNugjASfbQGiumFR CESw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZ6CF/fiIqDRLlF9CWK+X4wyr6s//xdx3Lde34F/BRfutuoG+7D7FNxxmrRoR4WOBW9CrL
X-Received: by 10.107.132.220 with SMTP id o89mr22104132ioi.9.1425573606192; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm5267831iom.29.2015.03.05.08.40.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:40:04 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/isoZu8ml3Bdxrfyfjh1ecJiQr4A>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:48:14 -0000

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