Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 3/2/15 4:58 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- Section 1 --
>
>     In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally
>     negotiated just as any other session type is using SIP.
>
> Nit: you need an appositive comma before "using SIP".

Or something. :-)

I'd prefer this:

    In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally
    negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using
    SIP).

> -- Section 6 --
>
>     Here the idle state indicates that the
>     sender is not actively composing a message, and the active state
>     indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a message (the
>     sending client simply toggles between the two states, changing to
>     active if the user is actively composing a message and changing to
>     idle if the user is no longer actively composing a message).
>
> This really sounds repetitious (because the repeating sounds repetitious
> when it repeats).  I think you could end the parenthetical after "toggles
> between the two states", because you've really already said the rest.

Agreed.

> -- Section 11 --
> The second paragraph looks like it's exactly the same as what's added in
> stox-im, and that's a normative reference already.  Why not add a
> citation to the security considerations in stox-im, and delete the second
> paragraph, incorporating it by reference?

Makes sense.

Peter

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