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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 C2B5B1A009E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 UFq8sZWKyYv2; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1E051A1B0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7945988154; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F65136825A; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F8898E.8010304@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:51:26 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150303151639.8667.53395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F797F6.5020803@andyet.net> <54F85777.8060607@innovationslab.net> <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F886E4.7050306@andyet.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FTiUVgHdp9I3S3EONbP5eK0r1VR4DWjPe"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/xBZaS8gAdv51mIxABUP4Mpdcaro>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:53:25 -0000


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