Re: [xmpp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 08 July 2014 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C5C1B2ACF; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 BygVsdcjfIKH; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70871A030A; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnYGAEYSvFOHCzIm/2dsb2JhbABZgkcjJFJagm+pBAEBAQEBAQaTB4dBARl9FnWEAwEBAQECARIRCkwFCwIBCA0EBAEBCx0DAgICMBQJCAIEDgUIARmIGAgBDKVEikeZOheFeoh3AQEeMQYBBoJxNoEWBaIujFSDQ2yBCzk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,625,1400040000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="75165125"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.38]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2014 11:49:22 -0400
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Jul 2014 11:49:21 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:49:20 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Thread-Topic: [xmpp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07
Thread-Index: AQHPmmk0VMwaQWD3002cTC8XVq7iEJuV4YTwgACvyYD//8ER8A==
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:49:19 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C838783@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C823BB2@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <7CC08F3C-4747-4B65-9743-A19CDAE9F940@piuha.net> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C836AB4@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <CAKHUCzx_2RLQN52Aj3esHmAeqVO31Nxe9rP3jN6zqcmoPQx=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzx_2RLQN52Aj3esHmAeqVO31Nxe9rP3jN6zqcmoPQx=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C838783AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/186LRL49OFFblTRNmXS-YAMhaus
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:52:13 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:49:29 -0000

Hi Dave,

An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was written, so of course, they can do without it. Now that the binding exist, the option should be visible IMO.

The language you use in the I-D actually seems to support this:

> The WebSocket
> XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of constructing and using
> XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by adopting the message framing provided by
> WebSocket to delineate the stream open and close headers, stanzas, and other
> top-level stream elements.

Regards,

Dan


From: Dave Cridland [mailto:dave@cridland.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:30 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Jari Arkko; draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; xmpp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

On 8 July 2014 10:06, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com<mailto:dromasca@avaya.com>> wrote:
Hi Jari,

The authors actually responded - see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html.

They pushed back on my #1 - I am still not convinced by their argument (as the protocol does change by adding a different mapping) but I would not block the document for this purpose.
The proposed changes for the rest are fine.

I genuinely don't understand why adding an additional binding should require an Updates.

I understand "Updates" to be an indicator that implementors of (in this case) RFC 6120 would need to read this document as well, and I don't believe that to be the case.

In particular, implementors of RFC 6120 don't need to care about this document unless they *also* want to do XMPP over Websockets, in the same way that implementors of Websockets don't need to care about this document unless they *also* want to send XMPP over them.

Of course, readers of this document are required to read both RFC 6120 and the Websockets spec, but that's what Normative References are for.

Dave.