[Stox] review of core (was: Re: review of core, chat, groupchat and presence)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 12 August 2013 21:26 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 234A721E8054 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, 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 WcPrKTfu6O0S for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2789621F9AE7 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [64.101.72.39]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FE62414F2; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:28:52 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520952E4.2090406@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:25:56 -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: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
References: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de>
In-Reply-To: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: [Stox] review of core (was: Re: review of core, chat, groupchat and 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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:26:45 -0000

Hi Philipp, thanks for the review. I'm splitting up my replies for
easier tracking...

On 8/8/13 12:33 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> I just noticed i reviewed -00 from the draft package... but anyway,
> quite a number of nits. Read them coming from XMPP land.
> 
> Comments prefixed with example of section number.
> editorial comments:
> - inconsistent usage of note. sometimes (Note: ...) other times (-im,
>   presence) Note:
> - chat and im prefix examples with '|'
> 

I'll review the documents for consistency, because I like consistency. :)

> core:
>     the draft says:
>          instant messaging and presence applications of XMPP also
>          need to support im: and pres: URIs
>          as specified in [RFC3860] and [RFC3859] respectively
>     while this is encouraged in RFC 6121, those are informative
>     references.

If I understand your comment correctly, you might agree with the
following change...

OLD
   The XMPP address format is specified in [RFC6122]; as discussed in
   [RFC6121], instant messaging and presence applications of XMPP also
   need to support 'im:' and 'pres:' URIs as specified in [RFC3860] and
   [RFC3859] respectively, although such support might simply involve
   leaving resolution of such addresses up to an XMPP server.

NEW
   The XMPP address format is specified in [RFC6122]; in addition,
   [RFC6121] encourages instant messaging and presence applications of
   XMPP to support 'im:' and 'pres:' URIs as specified in [RFC3860] and
   [RFC3859] respectively, although such support might simply involve
   leaving resolution of such addresses up to an XMPP server.

>     4.2 bullet 1: ref to jid escaping xep here instead of in bullet 3

It seems to me that the reference is appropriate in both places, so
adding it to bullet 1 seems reasonable.

>     5.1: <policy-violation/> is missing from the list.

Good catch. What SIP response code do you suggest mapping that to? The
best option I can see is "400 Bad Request".

Peter

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