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