Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Mon, 02 February 2015 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 69CD91A876A for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:36:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pWdobaW2OL7v for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D0F1A82E2 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id rl12so18753236iec.0 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:35:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B5kVZdYrwKkql7H/AVpL0OGfVi4izSvkp8NCW974qqY=; b=NXI/M/ZiTvAlOVmioQuP+raYdlooDUmHdh6upd4TOAK0n5nGKoCNOqGB6YcA+fYLgv hiky2j4775tCclZS56TkY3ndH5XIEeeRgAudHDp2Aln4TE/o+8VfPqlxXtMr0yeONG7I lpSe+ePjkVaTIP8I6GpZDwIwIu8l9M3iaKqjBWdwo8eYjml+6QsWH9491s9Iz7p+PQU1 Y5TeYzONRPH1qj+afoBBFEZQevk2hbmf9sUuE+kxazJe7oFqyxOOeOV0kNUzcH7JP5uz I+goTRcDswFirds/pugl56CBGcGXC0UMpx5rnWnrJJkiw/c1kJghQmKLK/5BLqmP37Yi JAYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmO/1w18Tm1PrqQs7/CbytI9i+s5KC9m8/HmSf4cFt6SFlOu61+2s+26KZjnysWBxbukl8x
X-Received: by 10.42.251.65 with SMTP id mr1mr10220855icb.76.1422894945742; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8202:a280:3df3:7ca3:bc84:ffd3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l192sm6243867ioe.9.2015.02.02.08.35.44 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54CFA75F.2040605@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:35:43 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, stox@ietf.org
References: <0C205FB7-2C6B-4773-830F-B8354CC65A75@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <0C205FB7-2C6B-4773-830F-B8354CC65A75@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/omdI1QhdmoPPkkL4Epat2QSlLBk>
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-chat-08
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, 02 Feb 2015 16:36:31 -0000

On 1/31/15 5:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> = Section 7 = Is all of the delivery report behavior meant to be
> entirely optional to support, or should there be some normative
> requirements listed in this section?

IMHO this is entirely optional (as with Section 6).

> = Section 4 = "The XMPP-to-SIP gateway at the XMPP server would then
> initiate an MSRP session with Romeo on Juliet's behalf (since there
> is no reliable way for the gateway to determine if Romeo's client
> supports MSRP, it simply needs to guess).”
>
> “Guessing” makes it sound like the gateway might use heuristics or
> some such to determine whether to initiate an MSRP session, and that
> in some cases it might not initiate a session. Would it be more
> accurate to say that MSRP session initiation may yield an error since
> there is no reliable way for the gateway to determine if Romeo's
> client supports MSRP?

Yes, that's better.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/