Re: [Stox] Review of -core

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 31 July 2013 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 274FC11E818B for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.475, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gKCrJMeVsz7w for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FBD11E81A5 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-2-456.cisco.com (unknown [198.135.0.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B4A040046; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:26:46 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51F91E1D.7020606@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:24:29 +0200
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
References: <B41C24DF-D89B-47B0-98D5-C176AC13EF81@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <B41C24DF-D89B-47B0-98D5-C176AC13EF81@ag-projects.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review of -core
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, 31 Jul 2013 14:24:45 -0000

On 7/30/13 3:41 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As promised, here is my review of the -core document:

Many thanks for the review.

> - Sec 4.3 defines instant specific mapping, which maps a public GRUU
> to a full JID and vice versa, but doesn't contain any text on
> temporary GRUUs. They take the following form:
> sip:yyd894uue094ur4@1.2.3.4:5060;gr. I don't think we can work with
> those, since there is nothing we can map to the resource part of the
> full JID, so I think we need some text to clarify this.

Agreed on temporary GRUUs. IMHO we'll need to add a note about that (but
I haven't yet had time to propose text).

> - Sec 5.1 maps the XMPP unexpected-request error to SIP code 491,
> which is very tied to the dialog semantics IMHO. I tried to find a
> better matching code but I couldn't though. Maybe a 500 with a
> reasonable Retry-After header value?

It seems to me that we'd want it to be a 4xx series error, but I don't
see a good one in RFC 3261.

> - Sec 5.1 should me map the SIP outbound (RFC5626) error codes? Those
> are 430, and 439 which could be translated to bad-request.

Could you explain the scenarios where outbound-related error codes might
be used? Feel free to say "just read RFC 5626". :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/