Subject: [Stox] Barry Leiba's comments on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:35:59 -0700

My apologies for missing the IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-groupchat 
(it seems that email notifications were not set up for that I-D as they 
were for the others).

For WG participants, you can find the comments here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ballot/

Barry Leiba wrote:

    -- Section 5.5.2 --

       The XMPP message type ought to
       be "chat" (and is not allowed to be "groupchat").

    I think this is fine, but because of your careful and measured use
    of 2119 throughout the document set, I wonder how this is meant to
    be different from 'and MUST NOT be "groupchat"'?

Those guidelines come from XEP-0045, so repeating the normative keywords 
from there seems ill-advised.

    -- Section 5.8 --

    I suggest:

    OLD
       |    <status>Time to go!</status>

    NEW
       |    <status>O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost</status>

Sure. You're really getting into the Shakespearean spirit, eh?

    -- Section 10 --

    My comment in stox-chat applies here, as well, though I note that
    in this case you do not already have a reference to stox-im to work
    with.

Right - there's no established method for encryption of multi-party 
messaging (that problem is even harder than one-to-one messaging).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:55:07 +0100

> from there seems ill-advised.

Ack; I knew there would be a good reason.  Thanks.

> Sure. You're really getting into the Shakespearean spirit, eh?

I enjoyed the fact that the examples aren't Alice and Bob, verily.

Barry