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.