Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 21:54 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 2462F1A9085 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:52 -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 j8YwX47F7k4g for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (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 510631A906E for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igbhn18 with SMTP id hn18so49971082igb.2 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:49 -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=6jcSAIilFZNe83jqB149YQ4eOB+lEptXFrwA0E9rBPk=; b=EC4eyDeDJhGiVXH2vyQ3qjQItKN6Ot1zqRvAH5A7JJuShsU94ks3uyuXfNjhkgmDJu ie/xMoOVf/D9e9nkgz5GYG3fJR04mPtwAGxnk6pjjXXSQXHoKTwhlX5RstvLn+50HdyK nL7uytB7B/mt7XSyd7NlWzR2twbliD01g0V2q5Cqwu1CvlDGOy3//qmCo4RHtY3LtvB6 iZGJDwLPrMeJickyz4giMPCc5lObd809ILLMuPMQKSAxBKBie6XsGDACcKkvH+5Mwrm2 IzeW2/NUHtyTtQ95wzaoJi+szeXeXgnXsnqIKkRPgZ7pCwQe7eWgEDO+7PAj8UrzzKs+ ThPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzCCkL60NVwNsZqvgw7L+cgIkBiWpBZTkgkAgO//n0zSV7H2RluS817WCjllJz8rtatdcG
X-Received: by 10.107.165.68 with SMTP id o65mr6716967ioe.56.1425592488824; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -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 l1sm5792135iod.19.2015.03.05.13.54.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F8D0A7.5040409@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:54:47 -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: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20150305051119.13941.30043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F88403.1000204@andyet.net> <CAKKJt-e75tZYUHa0FLGyQgu49VABYFj1h+1mmB0+ofvHf0K-Rw@mail.gmail.com> <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F8961F.8090104@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/kANiDyYB9LuLnJntxP51LFlZH3A>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, stox-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (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 21:54:52 -0000

On 3/5/15 10:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 3/5/15 10:28 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>> Hi, Peter,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
>> <peter@andyet.net <mailto:peter@andyet.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Spencer, thanks for the review. Comments inline.
>>
>>     On 3/4/15 10:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>
>>         Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>>         draft-ietf-stox-im-12: 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
>>         <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-im/
>>         <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------__------------------------------__----------
>>
>>         COMMENT:
>>
>> ------------------------------__------------------------------__----------
>>
>>
>>         I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for
>>         that.
>>
>>         I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue,
>>         please
>>         remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent
>>         understanding
>>         of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I
>> see raw
>>         XMPP.
>>
>>         It did not jump out at me when reading this specification,
>>         whether there
>>         is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a
>>         message
>>         was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the
>>         gateway.
>>
>>
>>     Assurance is a slippery thing. :-)
>>
>>     In XMPP we do have a way to communicate delivery receipts end-to-end
>>     <http://xmpp.org/extensions/__xep-0184.html
>>     <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html>> but that's an extension
>>     to the core specs. Given that MSRP has a similar mechanism for
>>     session mode messaging, we talk about that in draft-ietf-stox-chat
>>     instead of draft-ietf-stox-im.
>>
>>
>> I think I understood that. I was just thinking it might be good to say
>> something like "IMs don't return an indication of success or failure,
>> and if you need that, you want to use chat instead".
>
> That sounds reasonable.
>
> The XMPP method can be used for single instant messages, but as far as I
> understand it there's no similar method for page mode messaging in SIP,
> only session mode messaging in MSRP (so it wouldn't be end-to-end for
> single instant messages).

Here is a proposed enhancement to the relevant paragraph in the -im 
document:

    Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange
    "instant messages".  The term "instant message" usually refers to a
    message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time
    (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended
    recipient upon request).  This document covers single messages only
    (sometimes called "page-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest
    common denominator for IM.  Separate documents cover "session-mode"
    instant messaging in the form of one-to-one chat sessions
    [I-D.ietf-stox-chat], as well as multi-party chat sessions
    [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat].  In particular, session-mode instant
    messaging supports several features that are not part of page-mode
    instant messaging, such as a higher level of assurance regarding end-
    to-end message delivery.

Peter