Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:57:34 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stox-im-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 4 --

   stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
   defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
   'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
   "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).

I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should
probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of
something from 6121.

-- Section 8 --
Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that.  This section
say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does
not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language
tagging from one into the other.  Is that intentional?

My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say
that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:13:44 -0700

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/

Right, it's a restatement. Section 5.1 of RFC 6121 says:

    The user's client SHOULD address the initial message in a chat
    session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact

> tagging from one into the other.  Is that intentional?

I think it's an oversight.

> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.

That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:13:44 -0700

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:17:58 -0700

> That seems eminently reasonable. We'll formulate proposed text.

How about this:

    Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode
    characters [UNICODE] within messages, along with tagging of the
    language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang'
    attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header).  Gateways MUST
    map these language tagging mechanisms if they are present in the
    original message.  Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation"
    [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:17:58 -0700

How about this:

Peter

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:39:22 +0100

>>     session to the bare JID <contact@domainpart> of the contact

Ah, OK.  Then maybe if you said "(which says that for single instant
messages [...etc...])", and got rid of the "as per [RFC6121]", it'd be
clearer to me (though maybe this is just me).  With the long clause
there, I just wasn't sure how much was "per 6121".  Anyway, minor
thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think
right.

>>> that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.
...
>    [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.

That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks.  Thanks.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:39:22 +0100

...

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0700

> thing, point made, no need to respond further: just do as you think

Yep, I have this now:

    The syntax of the <message/>
    stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
    defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, Section 5.1 of
    [RFC6121] recommends that the value of the 'to' address be a "bare
    JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart").

> That looks like a light that from yonder window breaks.  Thanks.

:-)

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0700

Yep, I have this now:

:-)

Peter