Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <> Wed, 04 March 2015 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06321A00C8 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gu4IvVkWBc2P for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30A81A00CC for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iery20 with SMTP id y20so18457275ier.13 for <>; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2eFiu/sVmxdv0q+w1f2T3bIaAVCjHtcLonaDECEk3Gw=; b=SDFJmqmBuiIXrf6ju3/OJEvk4hL2AwfmRNE40qN/gjMsK3vWOSIjWmWMIsxSFTmKG9 Q03ChNA9FLAvzCrruwEq7LWAAcEIo+3X/GB0IBvKXtarGPqtGYkFVjJ/js/36UJA9UK/ rCuTQJSuu9lzDdFX9CBZQjlFm264BdUbeWe87FjBV5LATYz+N6eJuRRxXLJjZzI82dJR pXFBeTXN55qfrtN3zPq47RKF7feF55EZa4VlT6WPgNgpy5+KVplWlPWKBN0t0O33yrSa LobeZr7bqKzCmzvHnz6p7I2KYuZXwT3eiYDI4I2yskeSNmat/ofrZppD1FGd+YA4q8XY VZQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkz4jxT1uqlLXjivYWFapb0ks5l7TaAM603pfkI8WxRj5O3werRWsECXXpz35ku4VRtY7a
X-Received: by with SMTP id c6mr412930icp.32.1425512969492; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y5sm3864430ign.7.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Yana Stamcheva <>,, The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:49:31 -0000

On 3/4/15 4:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>      stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
>>>>      defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
>>>>      'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
>>>>      "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).
>>>> I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should
>>>> probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of
>>>> something from 6121.
>>> Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says:
>>>      The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat
>>>      session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact
> Ah, OK.  Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant
> messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be
> clearer to me (though maybe this is just me).  With the long clause
> there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121".  Anyway, minor
> thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think
> right.

Yep, I have this now:

    The syntax of the <message/>
    stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
    defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, Section 5.1 of
    [RFC6121] recommends that the value of the 'to' address be a "bare
    JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart").

>>>> My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say
>>>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.
> ...
>> How about this:
>>     Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode
>>     characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the
>>     language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang'
>>     attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header).  Gateways MUST
>>     map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the
>>     original message.  Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation"
>>     [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.
> That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks.  Thanks.