Re: [Stox] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-09.txt

[Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>]

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:25, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 9/14/16 9:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> A few additional notes...
>> 
>> On 9/12/16 8:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.
>>> 
>>> On 9/12/16 8:26 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> A few comments inline.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> Ben.
>>>> 
>>>> On 12 Sep 2016, at 5:42, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Review time!
>>>>    Page 10: " As described in Section 6
>>>>    , the XMPP-to-SIP gateway also generates a
>>>>    presence notification addressed to the XMPP user:
>>>>    “
>>>>    Should we say “if the NOTIFY contains a body” or is it obvious
>>>>    enough? It’s possible the SIP user is offline, but the XMPP is user
>>>>    is already authorised, so the NOTIFY will contain
>>>>    Subscription-State: active, but no body.
>>>> 
>>>> It's probably worth adding an example of how the the gateway might
>>>> interpret an empty body. I assume that if this is the first NOTIFY in
>>>> the dialog (notification session), the gateway would interpret that as
>>>> unknown or possibly "closed". If previous NOTIFYs have in the same
>>>> notification session, it should probably mean "no change".
>>> 
>>> Good idea, will do.
>> 
>>   As described in Section 6, if this first NOTIFY in the notification
>>   session contains a body then the XMPP-to-SIP gateway also generates a
>>   presence notification addressed to the XMPP user (if the NOTIFY does
>>   not contain a body then the gateway would interpret it as unknown or
>>   "closed"):
>> 
>>>>    Page 11: "As can be seen, because SIMPLE does not
>>>>    have a construct that enables a contact to cancel her presence
>>>>    authorization,”
>>>>    There is: remove the user from the corresponding XCAP rule. Next
>>>>    time presence is requested, it will be denied. (the SUBSCRIBE dialog
>>>>    still needs to be terminated though).
>>>> 
>>>> The text is about the subscriber, not the presentity. So if Juliet
>>>> subscribes to Romeo's presence, Romeo can change the authorization rule
>>>> (via xcap or otherwise). But /Juliet/ cannot.
>>>> 
>>>> I suppose "her authorization" can be a bit ambiguous. (If Romeo
>>>> authorizes Juliet, whose authorization is it?)
>>> 
>>> I was tempted to add "outbound" or "inbound" in all cases to make this
>>> crystal clear...
>> 
>> Changed to "cancel her outbound presence authorization"
>> 
>> <snip/>
>> 
>>>>    Page 27: " As described in [RFC3856
>>>>    ], this cancels any notification dialog but
>>>>    causes a NOTIFY to be sent to the subscriber, just as a presence
>>>>    probe does (the transformation rules for presence notifications have
>>>>    been previously described in
>>>>    Section 6.2 of this document).”
>>>>    A probe would be implemented as a new SUBSCRIBE dialog with expires
>>>>    0, which does’t cancel all other dialogs. So while the mechanism is
>>>>    the same, using a *new* SUBSCRIBE request with Expires: 0 would just
>>>>    be a probe, not a cancellation.
>>> 
>>> I will look into this. What you say sounds plausible but I'd like to
>>> double-check it against my reading of RFC 3856.
>> 
>> Yes, that looks right. I would change things as follows (note the new
>> Call-ID, too):
>> 
>>   A SIP-to-XMPP gateway would transform the presence probe into its SIP
>>   equivalent, which is a SUBSCRIBE request with an Expires header value
>>   of zero in a new dialog:
>> 
>>   Example 23: SIP Transformation of XMPP Presence Probe
>> 
>>   |  SUBSCRIBE sip:[e-mail] SIP/2.0
>>   |  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP x2s.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk
>>   |  From: <sip:[e-mail]>;tag=j89d
>>   |  Call-ID: 2398B737-566F-4CBB-A21A-1F8EEF7AF423
>>   |  Event: presence
>>   |  Max-Forwards: 70
>>   |  CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
>>   |  Contact: <sip:[e-mail]>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
>>   |  Accept: application/pidf+xml
>>   |  Expires: 0
>>   |  Content-Length: 0
>> 
>>   As described in [RFC3856], this causes a NOTIFY to be sent to the
>>   subscriber, just as a presence probe does (the transformation rules
>>   for presence notifications have been previously described in
>>   Section 6.2 of this document).
>> 
>>>>    General note: the examples with "<show
>>>>    xmlns='jabber:client'>away</show>” lack the XML namespace
>>>>    declaration for “jabber”.
>>> 
>>> Another good catch.
>> 
>> Actually, 'jabber' is not a prefix here and the namespace name is indeed
>> "jabber:client" - this was defined in the very early days of XML
>> namespaces and we Jabberites didn't fully understand what a namespace
>> name was supposed to look like. :(
>> 
>> If that all looks good, I will publish a revised I-D soon.
> 
> A diff is here:
> 
> https://github.com/stpeter/sip-xmpp/commit/a3ded08cbf1cc527f3f648813b3ecc46d5039094#diff-7f5e67ec097d24a4490853a1770f411b
> 

LGTM.  No objections from me!

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects