Re: [Stox] Review on -presence

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 14 August 2013 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 9B43521E80DB for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 LMqWqSQrGCV5 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BC521E80DD for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CiFV1m00B1ZXKqc5AinxrW; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:47:57 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Cinw1m01H3ZTu2S3hinwDa; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:47:57 +0000
Message-ID: <520BD0DB.5030507@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:47:55 +0200
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <0CB65FBA-7262-4189-8852-5FC08A34D50D@ag-projects.com> <51F99063.30203@stpeter.im> <51FCC3C0.3040200@stpeter.im> <520BA7EC.6050604@alum.mit.edu> <520BC1A7.1030104@stpeter.im> <520BC2A0.4020703@alum.mit.edu> <520BCC35.2040909@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <520BCC35.2040909@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1376506077; bh=vlQW8voc5IuloO1h54LdcDKfxYsi1T3oB4o50E+bMUs=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=NZlDfOvpSnZdTBaytsGAMoxRvT3DpVPM3IfkpbV23DRFwG2YZrk/xGoNnxeA/iyMO PBJImvUotEoGxRylzO7kTTPVzSvZcwBFS1y0LuO7arV9+R7eEW85gGJfxtgapWwfAe xk24jzl6WC5miYGz403Ww8z/J426oJyiGh9wpve3ViaqWfBi350qQM+RdcNSKHRVIy ZRUlBuSnJOBMYeJ4YDF0ws+trOuRP6O5zKc3vcfreSf33e5IkJCXq8a1SSjQ/BIeAf uOUWvkIzksJJP/afxfWh3YtlUHpUdm1uVW4ZjZD6mnrKG6Xs2m0JNkxR/LaZdFAmQF 94n8nrKCGDH3Q==
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review on -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: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:48:03 -0000

On 8/14/13 8:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> OK, good. Here is proposed text for Section 3.3.2:
>
>     For as long as a SIP user is online and interested in receiving
>     presence notifications from the XMPP users, the user's SIP user agent
>     is responsible for periodically refreshing the subscription by
>     sending an updated SUBSCRIBE request with an appropriate value for
>     the Expires header.  In response, the SIMPLE-XMPP gateway SHOULD send

S/SHOULD/MUST/

I'm using RFC6665 as my reference, rather than 3265.
See section 4.2.1.2 - the NOTIFY is required.

	Thanks,
	Paul

>     a SIP NOTIFY to the user agent; if the gateway has meaningful
>     information about the availability state of the XMPP user then the
>     NOTIFY SHOULD communicate that information (e.g., by containing a
>     PIDF body [RFC3863] with the relevant data), whereas if the gateway
>     does not have meaningful information about the availability state of
>     the XMPP user then the NOTIFY SHOULD be empty as allowed by
>     [RFC3265].
>
> That would come before the existing discussion of handling by the
> SIMPLE-XMPP gateway.
>
> Peter
>