Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 3/5/15 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 3/5/15 6:17 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 3/4/15 6:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>> On 3/3/15 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>>>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: 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
>>>> http://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:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-chat/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a
>>>> question for you to consider...
>>>>
>>>> Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the
>>>> lack of
>>>> a GONE message in XMPP.  Any thoughts on having this document suggest
>>>> possible values for such timers?  Not sure if that makes sense for
>>>> protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask.
>>>
>>> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For
>>
>> That is what I figured.
>>
>>> example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following
>>> for MSRP-related timers:
>>>
>>>     If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-
>>>     Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a
>>>     timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take
>>>     action if a success report is not received in this time.  There
>>> is no
>>>     universal value for this timer.  For many IM applications, it may be
>>>     2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second.
>>>     Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report
>>> has
>>>     not been received by the time the session is ended, the device
>>> SHOULD
>>>     inform the user.
>>>
>>> In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one
>>> point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State
>>> Notifications) states the following about the <gone/> state:
>>>
>>>     User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system,
>>>     or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes).
>>>
>>> The relevant contrast here is with the <inactive/> state:
>>>
>>>     User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an
>>>     intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes).
>>>
>>> There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of
>>> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers.
>>
>> I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment.  It's up to you
>> and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile.
> 
> We might say something like this:
> 
>    It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that
>    automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not
>    sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time
>    ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has
>    not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for
>    a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes).
> 

WFM!

Brian