Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:09 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 234E212D543; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 3DJUiD04eHd1; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0169812D8D6; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [73.34.202.214]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 355C8E8206; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:14:51 -0600 (MDT)
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <1794408B-8BE1-4F24-8A26-F40B1A0804EF@nostrum.com> <5609F9D5.2080306@andyet.net> <BD08A7FA-9722-4444-B5B7-3640D4AC2D56@nostrum.com> <56EF2815.8050407@stpeter.im> <57221AA1.5000609@stpeter.im> <B6D0869C-3E60-425E-827F-66A6BD8C6DA8@nostrum.com> <29063029-3EC9-476A-A8CA-2EF7B6BA9984@stpeter.im> <57225AAF.8060007@stpeter.im> <FBCF24A9-9E39-4A6D-970D-49C6E0EFE4F9@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <57460522.4030600@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:03:46 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FBCF24A9-9E39-4A6D-970D-49C6E0EFE4F9@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/ybOn7NXOVK5aJeXIzcbu1gtJIao>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:09:55 -0000
Yes, I think it's ready to go. I can give it a once-over consistency check first if you'd like, though. Thanks! Peter On 5/25/16 1:55 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I'm catching up on some backlog. Is this version ready to go in your > opinion, or was there more work to do? > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > On 28 Apr 2016, at 13:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> I just submitted -08 to address this issue (and clean up some related >> text and examples). >> >> On 4/28/16 10:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Good point. I think "notification dialog" sounds right. I'm trying to >>> avoid the term "subscription"... >>> >>> Sent from mobile, might be terse >>> >>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 9:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/16 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>>> A further thought... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/28/2015 09:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/24/15 11:55 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip/> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, how does this violate the SIP semantic? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's a mismatch in the meaning of subscribe. Treating a SIP >>>>>>>>>> subscription as if it were long-lived means the gateway >>>>>>>>>> follows the >>>>>>>>>> XMPP subscription model, not the SIP subscription model. A >>>>>>>>>> gateway >>>>>>>>>> implementer needs to choose which model to honor, and if it >>>>>>>>>> chooses >>>>>>>>>> the XMPP model then it's not honoring the SIP model (and >>>>>>>>>> vice-versa). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this depends on the resolution to the previous comment, >>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>> would say that if the protoocl behavior expectations of the SIP >>>>>>>>> subscriber are met, the semantic has not been violated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It still seems to me that the gateway is enforcing one model or the >>>>>>>> other. Perhaps "violate" is a strong word in this context, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we may be reading too much into the "ephemeral" subscription >>>>>>> model, while still trying to think of an xmpp subscription and a SIP >>>>>>> subscription of modeling the same thing. Both XMPP and SIP have an >>>>>>> ephemeral component and a long-lived component. In XMPP, the >>>>>>> subscription is long lived, and the presence session is relatively >>>>>>> ephemeral. In SIP, the authorization policy, and the presence of an >>>>>>> entity on a contact list are long lived, and the subscription is >>>>>>> ephemeral. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if we think of an XMPP subscription as equivalent to SIP >>>>>>> subscriber >>>>>>> authorization, and an XMPP presence session as equivalent to a SIP >>>>>>> subscription, I think we can avoid violence to the assumptions of >>>>>>> either >>>>>>> side. >>>>>> >>>>>> That too is helpful toward a better description of the mismatch in >>>>>> models. >>>>> >>>>> I propose to add the following paragraph to the introduction: >>>>> >>>>> Although specifications for both SIP and XMPP use the term >>>>> "subscription", the term is employed in different ways. In SIP, a >>>>> "subscription" is the mechanism whereby a subscriber requests >>>>> presence notifications from the contact over a relatively short >>>>> period of time, renewed as necessary to keep receiving presence >>>>> notifications. By contrast, in XMPP a "subscription" is >>>>> essentially >>>>> shorthand for a long-lived presence authorization. To prevent >>>>> confusion, this document uses the term "notification request" for >>>>> SIP subscriptions and the term "presence authorization" for XMPP >>>>> subscriptions. >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> I think this is on the right track. But I'm afraid SIP people might >>>> confuse "notification request" with "NOTIFY request", i.e. the >>>> NOTIFY message itself. >>>> >>>> To put things is SIP terms, would "subscription dialog" or >>>> "notification dialog" work? (Or maybe just "dialog"?) >>>> >>>>> Then modify the rest of the document accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> I started making these changes last night and will post a revised >>>>> I-D either today or tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> Peter
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248b… Peter Saint-Andre