Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and presence

Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> Mon, 30 September 2013 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
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 A0BC421F9C8B for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TraE0SML+JPf for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (lost.IN.psyced.org [188.40.42.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5075721F89F7 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r8UECQbm021548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:12:26 +0200
Received: from localhost (fippo@localhost) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id r8UECQOr021544; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:12:26 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: lo.psyced.org: fippo owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:12:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-X-Sender: fippo@lo.psyced.org
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <5240DBFB.4010607@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309301553001.21218@lo.psyced.org>
References: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de> <523FBFA2.3050902@stpeter.im> <523FD85C.6010600@goodadvice.pages.de> <5240DBFB.4010607@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and presence
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:12:33 -0000

>>> I don't feel that we need to show every 200 OK. Yes, we put the
>>> example in example.com, but sometimes you really can have too
>>> many examples. :-)
>>
>> Right. But then it might make sense to either add a "not shown"
>> marker in the ascii art or not number them. I'll check if that
>> happens often enough to make sense.
>
> Well, maybe we'll just add the examples for the sake of completeness.

humm, just noticed that -groupchat is odd here while checking this.
X4 is called ACK in both the diagram and example 4 (and is a sip ack)
whereas the S3 ACK in the diagram is a 200 in example 28.
I think it should be ACK in example 28.

I think not numbering things that are not shown (e.g. S2) would be 
consistent.