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

[Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <[e-mail]>]

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