Re: [Stox] Review on -presence

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 14 August 2013 17:43 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 9CBF811E8181 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 vykRaN-mN3cF for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D9A11E8180 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [64.101.72.39]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E56BE834D; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:46:05 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520BC1A7.1030104@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:43:03 -0600
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: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
References: <0CB65FBA-7262-4189-8852-5FC08A34D50D@ag-projects.com> <51F99063.30203@stpeter.im> <51FCC3C0.3040200@stpeter.im> <520BA7EC.6050604@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <520BA7EC.6050604@alum.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review on -presence
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, 14 Aug 2013 17:43:12 -0000

On 8/14/13 9:53 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 8/3/13 10:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> (1) SIP user agent is online and generates a refresh by re-subscribing.
>> In this case, the empty NOTIFY might make sense (although you could
>> argue that it's not truly an "initial NOTIFY").
> 
> An initial notify is the one directly in response to a SUBSCRIBE, even a
> re-SUBSCRIBE. So I don't think there should be any controversy.

Thanks for the verification.

So under this model, the SIP user agent would send a re-SUBSCRIBE and it
seems to me that the gateway then SHOULD (?) respond with a NOTIFY from
the SIP representation of the XMPP user/resource. There are two cases
for the NOTIFY:

1. If the XMPP user/resource is not in a "meaningful state" (cf. RFC
3856 and RFC 3265), the NOTIFY SHOULD (?) be empty.

2. If the XMPP user/resource is in a meaningful state, the NOTIFY SHOULD
(?) contain data about the user/resource.

Does that sound right?

Peter

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