Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and presence
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 19 September 2013 16:47 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 34E1321F95DD for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.981, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftUu52VaiHGe for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8272C21F9951 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn6-839.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 798CB206F1; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:51:55 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <523B2A83.7080302@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:46:59 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stox@ietf.org
References: <5203E484.4050902@goodadvice.pages.de> <523A7520.70002@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <523A7520.70002@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and presence
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 19 Sep 2013 16:47:20 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Philipp, thanks for the review. Comments inline. On 9/18/13 9:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/8/13 12:33 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > >> chat: example f2: call-id: contain jid? how about uniqueness?. Yes, RFC 3261 says they need to be unique: In a new request created by a UAC outside of any dialog, the Call-ID header field MUST be selected by the UAC as a globally unique identifier over space and time unless overridden by method-specific behavior. All SIP UAs must have a means to guarantee that the Call- ID header fields they produce will not be inadvertently generated by any other UA. I was unthinkingly following the examples in specs like RFC 4975. I'll change them to be UUIDs. >> Is there any text on the use of <thread/>? There is text about this in draft-ietf-stox-im, which says to map Call-ID to <thread/> and vice-versa. However, that probably belongs in the -chat document, since thread isn't really used in pager-mode single messages. >> in -im @example.com callid is used As mentioned, I'll make them UUIDs. >> a=lang could be taken xml:lang? In the -im I-D we map xml:lang to the Content-Language header. I think that's more appropriate than a=lang, which has some subtleties I'd prefer to avoid -- see draft-gellens-mmusic-negotiating-human-language for some related considerations. >> before example F4: the gateway acknowledges on behalf of juliet? Yours was a very brief comment and I'm not sure I understand the force of your question. Are you wondering why there's an ACK at this point in the negotiation? That's what I see in RFC 4975: Alice Bob | | | | |(1) (SIP) INVITE | |----------------------->| |(2) (SIP) 200 OK | |<-----------------------| |(3) (SIP) ACK | |----------------------->| |(4) (MSRP) SEND | |----------------------->| >> example f5: the initial message in F1 should have an id >> attribute Agreed. >> which gets mapped in f5. Does a786hjs2 map to thread/call id? That's an MSRP transaction identifier, which IMHO maps to a stanza 'id' attribute in XMPP. This too needs to be documented in the -chat I-D. >> example f6: shouldn't message-id should be different from f5? Yes, I think so, because that's a different transaction. >> mapping of message-id to id attribute, should be randomly >> generated if not present Hmm. In MSRP, the message-id can be used to identify an overall message, which might be chunked into separate transactions. XMPP doesn't have the concept of a message in the MSRP sense when we're talking about IM. In XMPP, In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047) enables you to chunk a large piece of data into smaller pieces, but that's used only for file transfer, not for IM. We could add a note about this in the -chat I-D, but for IM purposes I think we don't want to map the MSRP message-id to anything on the XMPP side. >> section 4: sessinos -> sessions; Yes, my fingers often make that mistake while typing. :-) 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSOyqDAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pLcoQAK6DaWqEMjTVA5rDHwP2ilpc hO7YCUOU9tig4y1F/75ySwg+zqERkotmj6o3PVl108LgUnCKYXThqr0qOyQ2ic4z k0/cVe4/dCqq4V0/HoKri2CEMpL1hoc5LK+Kwy1v8jnr/JtuCyoQ7tW/zXBK+VyR KRxoSaokmoZ/HAITLd2sVc0s90u0La73dggdy1xqp8uPXWEv12rnJ1cEdm0Vjdlk 2mS6Tn5XEx2yM5/C2/liJOcN7ntAcqRZ9P+4JLOkSHuJx++wKYrsu8gx7V3wET5A buxQcJUXQWCz7z628QC2rt30bo5BcDtow+MaEX5hyKi8Olmzo4062Bpc5sEijVHM TU43Dbk2BjusvtyYeVq44yOHhHnRFPeRqv5LhaGMaGpT6IcJNfm7PS/TZ/F94EZS +kMjIbGBbm4vW7CKQ98J9T9w4+qQG61TodgLs3pG53r0yYnsYpOD6Lq+5gJlUvcS t0cGezv2aEkgNRlr449JxOjihMqK4OyCsN4hL9wLbnNfxSXYCwiEJ8hCYaMEN6L7 KmI04FMVX70etWlV8LndYBeRBFDJGYQOCtPxhp71F+Q0Nkue4rFo+ebLwj9ywbVK 7KanGtPvrilPo6tqldGAH0VjB/HFEO9cOB/eZ9JBBTNrP/OI9HgazLITQmWv69bV qxrHafVj3/Fq/xk73RIv =0b1p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and presen… Philipp Hancke
- [Stox] review of core (was: Re: review of core, c… Peter Saint-Andre
- [Stox] review of presence (was: Re: review of cor… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Stox] review of core, chat, groupchat and pr… Philipp Hancke