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

[Michael Lundberg <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

Thanks.  See below for a response to your question.

Thanks,
Michael

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Mike, thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 7/19/13 6:01 AM, Michael Lundberg wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > I think draft-ietf-stox-presence-00 looks good.  I had a previous
> > comment to an earlier version that was not addressed that I'm
> > incuding it again as I think it is important for the document.
>
> Sorry I missed that.
>
> > I think it would be good to add the <show/> element to Table 7,
> > with a note similar to the one provided in Table 6. This will
> > provide a method for mapping 'away' and 'dnd' information in the
> > opposite direction.
>
> Agreed.
>
> (BTW, these are actually Table 1 and Table 2 -- we need to fix the
> numbering.)
>
> > Similar to the note in Table 6, this would require the SIP
> > implementation to support the 'jabber:client' namespace.  If the
> > SIP implementation supports the namespace, the gateway can then map
> > the values directly into the <show/> element of the XMPP presence
> > messages.
>
> True.
>
> 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.

> > The only other thing I saw was that the below sentence in Section
> > 3.2.3 is missing the word "send" after SHOULD.
> >
> > Current:
> >
> > Upon sending the transformed unsubscribe, the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway
> > SHOULD a presence stanza of type "unsubscribed" to the XMPP user:
> >
> > New:
> >
> > Upon sending the transformed unsubscribe, the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway
> > SHOULD send a presence stanza of type "unsubscribed" to the XMPP
> > user:
>
> Noted. :-)
>
> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR70UxAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pGHgP/3egwP1prfQ0se36jXI6wlR4
> LaYerbpXqnTBrlHXft1sVvCCVFHpCbRgRecUYm5sFwC5nDtxN83u4UpVEuijO7Wv
> ajMYLNNz3m0z/Vo2nfK94FzH5wK2tVNWBV5orAbIfc+SH60WTw2HOgSntoK/yvTK
> iiX8hpfYTv09ZX3iE4ZnBoPVEqG2oxo9CKouCRl4WxwPEE3rZF+PcOn6PvmPWpvE
> Xf5htIDKmvOv53mM4OU7KpR0j+2QyS6egkbOOsxki0gT/m5ZYm1HmF2WA4b5LXOl
> 1/mM+KQM2qukcr5BHVy2HV53cybkCx8Nf5DhtkXOG5Ti57jiWgvomeLDOTqgLf3w
> 8yFgLKHD4RFb6z/9k8k4EdHx9aMO+HhCMkKK2qeHPc6cf96vjMKAASMdjcRsmlOu
> 0pzudOpe9cfRnzSQamn6/0/H7JX/9O8fZ2Ya7/Cb6qdr7KUCrOAIRIgK07fmMDIY
> G3lgXSkzQTrYuIQ34mp+jXEdZf3+J4B422y8UvoZ5QmgVMNNrkARuv+DWnGprCrQ
> EnKnbFGJbdNfLuof5RTg8FaJofKeWPCj2UAsRbVn0le1sbjoy43hvRF9r5Gv5KzG
> 2K9Ei8/XoYPkZRWdst6/RpQ/R5Nox40xK/SCWs067P7qsTKGByciEJVAjm336vAy
> vFM/cMMZUGP6KyKTxwaJ
> =YNJV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----