Re: [Stox] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@filament.com>
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 83755129517 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=filament-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 O3ot0oisyWUw for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8FD51293F9 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 128so112672661oih.0 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=filament-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INUksYTrlbJ6Bn2eGUfZ/lC1SO6haTkGHPT2YvvBCUY=; b=zvaYv9WklhFUda5y6mfOzS0jwpo262d99wbWrw6EQGIQz5zZ9F5HwehJ+jQibIcbl7 WxbJQQgezBwGhkxzXjJpCxzjsLbGdrTB/MJw2sP9sU8Dr9pY32OZHiU9N6IuV8LEcwpw IpOHki2hRlQufVDbls4tHOQ5+rSHP3GOquKXC7ti5Pqr+wA2Lf3YyaI/7Un1XejnOWv+ oJ5e5HpBRvjTUyG9bMPoVWpwbLAbgJ/6HAifaCOynYbMDrBne05OUD+gDDo+NZM+3eIt n6gTu2/xIwBS9LHxftjdQ6HCMhRcUwEjyr+tbhB4Xyi6na1S/CgMMuSFlCl/zEWCLYct 7lNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INUksYTrlbJ6Bn2eGUfZ/lC1SO6haTkGHPT2YvvBCUY=; b=AcvMyewdvNUemrs71PD6mctIDtamEjxrtMNIinPJMnhBt48zHoMx577HHbk5vhfzWw W/jblfgEnTxRxnwG0xf5sjFLrHqgTTw3pv6wYN9dGZas8Gr3fONFKiWk5RHlpdZaU8H5 7Fj9usePNz+D9nQVZPdouxBeb/eOYczftAuAS3RVq5Sk2nGoHGyBOsETUM9f4/RVpB/P 0nQV1IZb5ZVA0DfPCwIrZDkNskQCENIpN7XQSbKhvo8QG5MRgDrOxhHy4w23v0biQ4m5 1oBCuIMySoEjdBVQXK76jH1Ns1AK8i7c7MX3Nh6TKAXj0Vvmsmi69hKJ/HHQd3hUcSyh tPYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf/BczGoVzeGfqIwg4RKGr1vjOXRSRP7BjyAMgMzDuXVwBHAs93FwZLDGfrl7uaKg==
X-Received: by 10.107.140.150 with SMTP id o144mr89563iod.8.1478021993167; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4202:67d3:b0de:8e4d:77d:66fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c79sm1899314itc.13.2016.11.01.10.39.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <147800811917.23892.1662525206263233255.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com>
Message-ID: <76a42e67-39b1-f462-b883-26e304fd4769@filament.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:39:51 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <147800811917.23892.1662525206263233255.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/qvmjqvcSvyZCeOehEexv0u1ANmA>
Cc: draft-ietf-stox-7248bis@ietf.org, stox@ietf.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, saul@ag-projects.com
Subject: Re: [Stox] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:39:55 -0000

On 11/1/16 7:48 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-13: 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 https://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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-7248bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Below is a small suggested edit for text in Section 9.2. I think the
> normative "MUST honor data about ..." construction is vague.
>
> OLD
> Therefore, a gateway MUST honor data about
>    the intended recipient of a presence notification (as represented by
>    the 'to' address for XMPP and by the Request-URI for SIP) and it MUST
>    NOT route or deliver a presence notification to any other entities,
>    because it does not possess information about authorization to
>    receive presence notifications for such entities - that information
>    resides at the user's home service, not at the receiving gateway).
>
> NEW
> Therefore, a gateway MUST
>    NOT route or deliver a presence notification to any entity other than
> the intended recipient (as represented by
>    the 'to' address for XMPP and by the Request-URI for SIP),
>    because it does not possess information about authorization to
>    receive presence notifications for such entities - that information
>    resides at the user's home service, not at the receiving gateway).

Yes, that's more concise. Will fix before publication.

Thanks for the review!

Peter