Re: [Stox] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 3/5/15 9:16 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 3/4/15 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>> On 3/4/15 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: 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
>>>> 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-chat/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in
>>>> section
>>>> 5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or
>>>> "inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in
>>>> section 6, seems useful.
>>>
>>> Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, <active/> is sent along with
>>> a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at
>>> F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a
>>> "standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as
>>> a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties.
>>> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable...
>>
>> Proposed text:
>>
>>    The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the
>>    sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a
>>    message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway
>>    could thus send an <active/> notification to the XMPP user when the
>>    SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in
>>    Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected
>>    by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat
>>    session.
>
> Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an
> <inactive/> notification at the beginning, and send the <active/> with
> the first message.

That feels weird. :-)

> But either way, the above works.

Super.

Peter