Subject: [Stox] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-im-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:11:19 -0800

Spencer Dawkins 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that.

I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please
remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding
of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw
XMPP.

It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there
is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message
was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the
gateway. If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier
than a Note: halfway through page 5.

Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening,
TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually
receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the
right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but
the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the
other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's
worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section
would be fine).