Subject: [Stox] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:16:39 -0800

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: 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-chat/

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

No objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a
question for you to consider...

Sections 4 and 6 talk about implementing timers to deal with the lack of
a GONE message in XMPP.  Any thoughts on having this document suggest
possible values for such timers?  Not sure if that makes sense for
protocols much closer to real users, but thought I would ask.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:40:38 -0700

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

The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For 
example (in a slightly different context), RFC 4975 notes the following 
for MSRP-related timers:

    If success reports are requested, i.e., the value of the Success-
    Report header field is "yes", the sending device MAY wish to run a
    timer of some value that makes sense for its application and take
    action if a success report is not received in this time.  There is no
    universal value for this timer.  For many IM applications, it may be
    2 minutes while for some trading systems it may be under a second.
    Regardless of whether such a timer is used, if the success report has
    not been received by the time the session is ended, the device SHOULD
    inform the user.

In the XMPP community we had quite a bit of discussion about this at one 
point and couldn't come to agreement. That's why XEP-0085 (Chat State 
Notifications) states the following about the <gone/> state:

    User has not interacted with the chat session interface, system,
    or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 10 minutes).

The relevant contrast here is with the <inactive/> state:

    User has not interacted with the chat session interface for an
    intermediate period of time (e.g., 2 minutes).

There's quite a bit of fudging there, but pointing to the specifics of 
XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers.

Peter

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:40:38 -0700

Peter

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:17:43 -0500

Hi Peter,

> The problem is that implementers never agree on the timer values. For

That is what I figured.

> XEP-0085 might be helpful to some implementers.

I think that might be useful, but it is only a Comment.  It's up to you
and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile.

Thanks for the quick response!

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:17:43 -0500

Hi Peter,

That is what I figured.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:40:04 -0700

> and your AD to decide if it is worthwhile.

We might say something like this:

    It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that
    automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not
    sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time
    ([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if the user has
    not interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for
    a relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes).

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:40:04 -0700

Peter

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:51:26 -0500

On 3/5/15 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>> Please refer to
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

WFM!

Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:51:26 -0500

WFM!

Brian