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

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

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

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Yana Stamcheva <[e-mail]> 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.