Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 09 February 2015 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4901A1A8AA0 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k8NZmm4wq_vp for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DBD61A8AAA for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A50C20C1C for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:44:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:44:12 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=l/AYrBt2JxA8bYODJCpginAIvKU=; b=vM7mGciisOGKuW24zQRGY 1IykDC/Bnm+mrtapPFBxdDk+mKlhAF1bwS8YpxeGqFUx+6i5JZqsKloYFjCYhv32 T5lMzMWaDvgp3YfkA/IAiofS6X2edJWO2lrBZIhaVJyqrHvRVoUC3ZD3ktGvA4+e jKI4sl0GHBznEqDiUvFpYw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=l/AYrBt2JxA8bYODJCpginA IvKU=; b=Cb2eb7TGowVEbeR/KTiSfIZ6U2DZFvNnRLK02jRRIlD+//vND5jdPc0 rd/bmyZsrP0DGmXuAt2BgQohwSM96q6Dzw6XOipLs6BY7ALvn2gcoPcqp9UxtpFv Z8AwoEMQKlRfbdtGZg0Lbasn5fkOHzupfXvM0xSSiJ3/sRA6S4i8=
X-Sasl-enc: 3mZVBhcnMZeFKLHhBYSumfHkf5QhFsQl3d323g5XFduc 1423525452
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.235]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A02106801F2; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:44:11 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <54CFA468.5070807@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:08 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE87A0CA-EDBE-4180-AFA0-0C7A405FCA4F@cooperw.in>
References: <48B4925F-747B-4453-AF7F-3B1E9505A549@cooperw.in> <54CFA468.5070807@andyet.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/ogKRaoAQo9lg0fWHn9kg2xj_wTw>
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-im-10
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:44:16 -0000

The new draft addresses all of my issues, thanks. I’d like to see how the discussion with Ben resolves before issuing an IETF LC.

Alissa

On Feb 2, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:

> Hi Alissa, thanks for the review. Comments inline.
> 
> On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC, along with the
>> -chat and -groupchat drafts. Overall the document appears in good
>> shape. I have a comment I’d like to discuss before proceeding to IETF
>> LC, along with an editorial nit to be addressed with any LC
>> comments.
>> 
>> You will note some commonality across my comments on all three
>> drafts. In general, these drafts could do a better job of precisely
>> specifying what is minimally required (normatively) for
>> interoperability, versus what is optional or likely to differ between
>> implementations. I think if at least the syntax mappings are
>> normatively specified that should be sufficient, but the authors and
>> WG might want to consider doing another pass at these documents to
>> see if they could be more clear about which protocol exchanges the
>> various gateways must support for STOX to work at all, versus which
>> ones are suggested or optional.
>> 
>> Comment:
>> 
>> To achieve minimal interoperability, I think the syntax mappings in
>> Section 4 need to be MUST-level requirements rather than SHOULD. Or,
>> if there are cases envisioned in which different implementations
>> might map the elements differently, those should be explained. But I
>> assume there are not.
> 
> That seems reasonable.
> 
> Would you like the authors to complete this review and cleanup (with revised I-Ds for all three documents) before IETF Last Call?
> 
>> Nit:
>> 
>> If GRUUs are generally not human-readable in use, I would suggest
>> changing the ones in Section 4 to random identifiers.
> 
> Good point. Will fix.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/