Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 09 February 2015 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B231A8AB1 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 mVzaLiq9UmHo for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5891A8AAA for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1685120E33 for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:44:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:44:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=QeBpjk0WtytvKhuHYEcy98a3jj0=; b=PzVqgtLwEGGyeZN91aHNc tszMBtxsXqAtTlMMl36HzqzbDb/6/IOqi1WOtwmk9Bbdg1M0L+MRA3YqcnX5ZAwM C/GElpvW14JXW9EElsLTuGKV/t8hilC9U6ZHRVzTuOxxeWNB0fmXgC3rgVTy6BNl m6o3Y9FN2jdhrsLj8oL9JU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=QeBpjk0WtytvKhuHYEcy98a 3jj0=; b=JPIjI+guyAuvHpHC/Wo9dy4yxutUT5bb2QbhIs4acB/IVgl11u778oZ yncGFK7TdS0T6MVcSiMfrHIYx3MgbOQnLOaZ1WkMZ+nbSv7T8hhLvbeS/MnM40J2 Bb2oN/Heny+P9EmQJiQzMTAXujGckYDIn1I4RUd+enqR5CCT/Wtc=
X-Sasl-enc: xHVUn3oMppW2vciUc5DJUX8sFx9ANK7GMOso0E83QU1n 1423525458
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.235]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 20BE7680153; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:44:17 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <54CFACEA.1040304@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:44:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <01A1D5F0-5363-4298-A86C-11280D66F903@cooperw.in>
References: <71D99F08-87C8-4E4A-9DC3-2DC3C2991B1B@cooperw.in> <54CFACEA.1040304@andyet.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/uetGL-WoNY1AvSwhW6MtgQ8haiE>
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Feb 2015 23:44:21 -0000

Peter,

Thanks, the changes look good.

On Feb 2, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:

>> "Therefore, for display purposes SIP implementations
>>    ought to use the <display-text/> element if the XCON 'nickname'
>>    attribute is not present, and XMPP implementations ought to use the
>>    resourcepart of the occupant JID if the <nick/> element is not
>>    present.”
>> 
>> Should these be normative requirements?
> 
> I don't think that display name mappings are critical for interoperability.

Fair enough, I thought there was a case missing in there where the user might end up entering a display name that then does not get displayed because the gateway does not support it, but those cases seem to be covered.

For this draft I think Ben’s comments can be incorporated together with IETF LC comments. But I’d like to put all three documents in LC together, so will wait on the resolution of the comments on the other drafts.

Thanks,
Alissa