Re: [Stox] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-presence-00

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 19 August 2013 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 BF02E11E8142 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.962
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w990hyzGFd36 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C02711E810F for <stox@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [64.101.72.46]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D71EE834E; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:22:12 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <5212537F.1070901@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:18:55 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Lundberg <michaellundberg.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CANVDpGHNdp47OHbB6mAFVjaO2bx1Jtv53fukmOKK14KXYb7c5g@mail.gmail.com> <51EF4531.6090902@stpeter.im> <CANVDpGGUTtiT9Rh6vQMKiB88oQ3JJ6+qGTYnw5U2Uuwz6QFjXA@mail.gmail.com> <51F29BF9.3070506@stpeter.im> <51F648BE.3040004@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <51F648BE.3040004@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Comments on draft-ietf-stox-presence-00
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 19 Aug 2013 17:19:02 -0000

On 7/29/13 4:49 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/26/13 5:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 7/26/13 4:50 PM, Michael Lundberg wrote:
>>
>>> One clarifying question: when you say "if the SIP implementation
>>> supports the namespace", do you mean the XMPP-to-SIP gateway or the
>>> SIP user agent?
>>>
>>>> Good question.  It would be benificial if both supported the
>>>> namespace, but only the gateway is probably required to.  If the
>>>> client supports the namespace, then the gateway would just need to map
>>>> between the elements described in this document.
>>>
>>>> If the client doesn't support the namespace, the gateway would most
>>>> likely need to do an additional translation into a namespace the
>>>> client does understand.  In this case, the values might not be the
>>>> same between the two namespaces, and therefore things are 'lost' in
>>>> translation. This is one of the big issues with presence mapping today
>>>> as many implementations have thier own implementation specific
>>>> namespace, which makes it hard to map between different
>>>> implementations.  Both the implementation specific and common
>>>> namespaces could coexist, where the implementation specific namespace
>>>> is used for internal communication and a common, standard namespace
>>>> (e.g., 'jabber:client' ) is used when communicating between different
>>>> implementations.
>>
>> Yes, I think that makes sense. I'm not sure exactly how to translate
>> that into text (especially the part about proprietary / non-standard
>> namespaces), but I'll work something up for consideration by the list.
> 
> Here is some proposed text:
> 
> OLD
>    5.  Some implementations support custom extensions to encapsulate
>        this information; however, there is no need to standardize a PIDF
>        extension for this purpose, since PIDF is already extensible and
>        thus the <show/> element can be included directly, qualified by
>        the 'jabber:client' namespace in the PIDF XML.  The examples in
>        this document illustrate this usage, which is RECOMMENDED.  The
>        most useful values are likely "away" and "dnd", although note
>        that the latter value merely means "busy" and does not imply that
>        a server or client ought to block incoming traffic while the user
>        is in that state.
> 
> NEW
>    5.  Some implementations support custom extensions to encapsulate
>        detailed information about availability; however, there is no
>        need to standardize a PIDF extension for this purpose, since
>        PIDF is already extensible and thus the <show/> element
>        (qualified by the 'jabber:client' namespace) can be included
>        directly in the PIDF XML.  The examples in this document
>        illustrate this usage, which is RECOMMENDED.  The most useful
>        values are likely "away" and "dnd", although note that the
>        latter value merely means "busy" and does not imply that a
>        server or client ought to block incoming traffic while the user
>        is in that state.  Naturally, a gateway can choose to translate
>        a custom extension into an established value of the <show/>
>        element [RFC6121], or translate a <show/> element into a custom
>        extension that the gateway knows is supported by the user agent
>        of the intended recipient.  Unfortunately, this behavior does
>        not guarantee that information will not be lost; to help prevent
>        information loss, a gateway ought to include both the <show/>
>        element and the custom extension if the gateway cannot suitably
>        translate the custom value into a <show/> value.
> 
> Mike, does that text address your concern? Do we need to say more (or
> less) than that?

It seems that I neglected to include this text in the latest version.
I'll submit another revision.

My apologies.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/