Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

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

I just submitted -08 to address this issue (and clean up some related 
text and examples).

On 4/28/16 10:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Good point. I think "notification dialog" sounds right. I'm trying to avoid the term "subscription"...
>
> Sent from mobile, might be terse
>
>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 9:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/20/16 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> A further thought...
>>>>
>>>> On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP
>>>>>>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway follows the
>>>>>>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A gateway
>>>>>>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it chooses
>>>>>>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and vice-versa).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, but I
>>>>>>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP
>>>>>>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model or the
>>>>>> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" subscription
>>>>> model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and a SIP
>>>>> subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have an
>>>>> ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the
>>>>> subscription is long lived, and the presence session is relatively
>>>>> ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence of an
>>>>> entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription is ephemeral.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP subscriber
>>>>> authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a SIP
>>>>> subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions of either
>>>>> side.
>>>>
>>>> That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch in
>>>> models.
>>>
>>> I propose to add the following paragraph to the introduction:
>>>
>>>    Although specifications for both SIP and XMPP use the term
>>>    "subscription", the term is employed in different ways.  In SIP, a
>>>    "subscription" is the mechanism whereby a subscriber requests
>>>    presence notifications from the contact over a relatively short
>>>    period of time, renewed as necessary to keep receiving presence
>>>    notifications.  By contrast, in XMPP a "subscription" is essentially
>>>    shorthand for a long-lived presence authorization.  To prevent
>>>    confusion, this document uses the term "notification request" for
>>>    SIP subscriptions and the term "presence authorization" for XMPP
>>>    subscriptions.
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I think this is on the right track. But I'm afraid SIP people might confuse "notification request" with "NOTIFY request", i.e. the NOTIFY message itself.
>>
>> To put things is SIP terms, would "subscription dialog" or "notification dialog" work? (Or maybe just "dialog"?)
>>
>>> Then modify the rest of the document accordingly.
>>>
>>> I started making these changes last night and will post a revised I-D either today or tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Peter