Re: [Stox] Reminder WGLC on -im and -chat

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 09 December 2013 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.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 6F8F11AE2B9 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:22:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 IG6JM1e5lsVb for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BA01ADF79 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so3912948oag.32 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:22:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TNZAa81HXUSngeKHDgFQdxkbsO/UJWPc9/om5beKzGs=; b=HnQoHY60ZvMuWNAv42LJilbg68X64eXMT5vWnyH3I12MrpSfXVQWNCe//vMPIzd+vU I0jSm2uAiwUag0eJPKF1AhvWVnpWliPN8CVT5MwvxqGkn27pr5yUJcKqtqU9nJW53J1u wkgZzfozKHh9jcmtd9Az3kKyVvCWZ39FySy2k=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TNZAa81HXUSngeKHDgFQdxkbsO/UJWPc9/om5beKzGs=; b=RK3lVKQka4OxcxgAT4wOT0aJAE5gTb+2egpDaNXEr6Gn6qCB/FiO2XnB+0YpO1xIzV nc1xFuSSu19qpJ/Wyh92DopEwUO2UFuwo0EhMjEAoGIrLkHQJGqJxqbg+IYFtKAJvB8Z BtpFBqbWhgUJfPwpsyhwSWngMh4kKNtu30iXPQG/4TLNnEjRy2qQ8gys398dA+hmvUWl dH0ej4YbBZ+YCajekkEKqIfmenlpO659Ge0i8niaNkR4GDOxEnvADLmDs72+LCp6BeDn 0ZaYrjjhGEGu514cwV/XzYhPI4bW25p7MQTAgSfISP8TqdmSPmU/wwweLV8aWLRHmk2I HXMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlV6cUzpkg4lAbj7cFE0wmwRbNYn+fHDeWpWTMfOoprV5ymn26wHLvMPtRA/xQzswUnJJlM
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.229.34 with SMTP id sn2mr85812obc.86.1386598920324; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.144.38 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:22:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <648368DC-1BD5-4D6A-B4E0-3D72B2EB3A6D@jitsi.org>
References: <648368DC-1BD5-4D6A-B4E0-3D72B2EB3A6D@jitsi.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:22:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwRBEDH3_zc6ESz7YYP0FAbKuZEqX3Dc+_bqV_X=fgXGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Yana Stamcheva <yana@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134975017c6cc04ed1ab8a9
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Reminder WGLC on -im and -chat
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:22:07 -0000

World's shortest reviews to try and sneak past the deadline:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Yana Stamcheva <yana@jitsi.org> wrote:

> draft-ietf-stox-im-05 : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-im-05
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-im-05 draft-ietf-stox-chat-03>


FWIW, I don't think you could actually do much of this wrong - that is,
beyond -core (and therefore address and error mappings), I suspect
everything else can fall into a quality-of-implementation issue - so as
such, I think this only needs to supply guidance and wisdom rather than
laying down the law - I'm reviewing accordingly.

This largely seems OK.

§6 appears to have interesting mangling of the characters. I think
&amp;#xC3A9; is intended to be &#xC3A9; isn't it?

I think this is an unfortunate choice of notation, actually, because in the
XMPP case this is valid as-is, whereas in the SIP case it needs to be
unencoded UTF-8 - I don't know whether the Content-Type should also include
a charset parameter for SIP.

It may be better to show either C-style or URL escaping of the UTF-8 in the
SIP version, or else a <U+C389>, or something. This will impact the
Content-Length of course.

Security Considerations should probably refer back to -core as well,
shouldn't they?

draft-ietf-stox-chat-03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-im-05
> draft-ietf-stox-chat-03> :
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-chat-03


This draft appears to consist mostly of two giant examples. :-)

However, it seems to be sufficient guidance to build an interoperable
gateway, so I'm happy this is ready - however as with the above, Security
Considerations should probably refer back to -im and -core.

Dave.