Re: [Stox] Review for stox-7248bis-02

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <> Mon, 20 July 2015 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DEF1A9030 for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UIlkDDnaO_Nd for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F9B41A916D for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbij6 with SMTP id ij6so86060431igb.1 for <>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XOYXMIKetJIPebsz5SRrvMWX8eClUqGhe+NNLZhrsiE=; b=YOKecyzr8dHNnlghAc0jc9MyLaDHMv2IumtnZgB3Hj77mg2B/EO90qLAKpGQ8kBQ+y prjNxNuI+z2h0WKxBp+4Ct8XB89/lFtwgsrmXh3PXlKKFTjArxAQ0R3LSDkbFQEIDHcK v7diQDFggBtn7Nn0b1JjwJv8CmicGPbWvF8rXx1aQH1oa7Exes8puRnZXGYQRtmPMtLR GwRH5IUJds3kh1I2jUnZQD/A2Kl60d+JNrLveyZuwTcCPX8ire1nzfgAnpoDF6vkopso rogTMOK5Lnf1eHJLXrWZgFMBRoxQ3b5KOypnbq8s32eHce/oZfbRWik/eYO8IExEBNrB rTcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7S+CLYOfKUBagH0Wehn/X2bcPanx+tcLnUbmdNVjBfkRNSNfqAFPZOox6EzI4LpooPOCB
X-Received: by with SMTP id m10mr16765227igv.60.1437408813941; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4201:ef5b:f92d:45d0:a729:b1a0]) by with ESMTPSA id j3sm5514132ige.0.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:13:30 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Isomaki Markus (Nokia-TECH/Espoo)" <>, "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review for stox-7248bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:13:36 -0000

Hi Markus, thanks for the review.

On 7/16/15 8:18 AM, Isomaki Markus (Nokia-TECH/Espoo) wrote:
> Hi Peter, all,
> I did a review for the 7248bis-02 draft and unless I'm missing something, there seem to be still a few confusing things  about the message flow diagrams and the terminology about SIP-to-XMPP and XMPP-to-SIP gateways. (The reason to go for 7248bis was indeed to fix the message flows so they are really the main part of it.)
> A minor issue:
> - In the diagrams abbreviations S2X GW and X2S GW are used. While most readers can guess what they mean, it would be good to open them explicitly, perhaps in Section 3, Terminology.

Yes, we borrow those terms from RFC 7247 but I agree it would be good to 
spell them out again here.

> Bigger issues:
> - The diagram in Section 4.2.1: It looks weird that the SIP server already generates the (F7) 200 OK message,

By my reading of RFC 3856 the presence server sends the 200 OK as soon 
as the subscription request is approved. Do you think it shouldn't send 
the 200 OK until later (e.g., after it sends the NOTIFY)?

> while the (F8) NOTIFY does not get any response. Shouldn't it be that the 200 OK is generated by the "X2S GW" and then passed forward by the SIP server?

I agree that the gateway needs to send a 200 OK in response to the 
NOTIFY, and that would happen right after the current step F8.

> - The text in 4.2.1 is somewhat confusing as well, as it first (understandably) talks about XMPP-to-SIP GW as shown in the diagram ("S2X"), but then (after Example 2) talks a few times about SIP-to-XMPP GW as well. I believe this is coming from 7248, which does have the two GWs as explicit entities in the diagram. But in 7248bis they are merged, and the current text makes the reader wonder if SIP-to-XMPP GW refers to the same entity as XMPP-to-SIP GW as shown, or whether there is another implicit/invisible GW function included.

You are right - the text needs to be scrubbed a bit more.

> - The same issue occurs in 4.3.1 in reverse. There, the diagram only has "S2X GW" but the text contains both SIP-to-XMPP and XMPP-to-SIP.


> So we have gotten rid of the double gateways of 7248 in the diagrams, but they still somehow loom in the text and terminology. I think there are a couple of options to clarify this: Either always refer to the gateway as XMPP-to-SIP (X2S) in those sections that are about XMPP-to-SIP, and vice versa. Or, make the gateway direction neutral and just call it something like SIP-XMPP GW everywhere. Or, explain some more about the directions.

Those gateways really don't want to be removed, do they? ;-) I'll clean 
up the text and diagrams, then post a revised I-D.

> Sorry to be late about this, but I guess this is the last chance and we should definitely get the gateways right this time :-O

Um, yes. :-)


Peter Saint-Andre