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

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:36:50 -0800

Pete Resnick 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks good, but a question: Shouldn't F6 in section 4 and F18 in section
5 result in sending an XMPP Chat State Notification of "active" or
"inactive" to the XMPP client? If so, adding that, and a discussion in
section 6, seems useful.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:02:01 -0700

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

Hm. Typically in Chat State Notifications, <active/> is sent along with 
a content message - so for example it would be sent with the messages at 
F11 in §4 and F24 in §5. Yes, it is possible to send what we call a 
"standalone notification", and that might make sense in this context as 
a way to flag the existence of a chat session between the parties. 
Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable...

Peter

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:02:01 -0700

Peter

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:33:01 -0700

> Adding a sentence about this possibility doesn't seem unreasonable...

Proposed text:

    The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the
    sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a
    message, even before any messages are exchanged; although a gateway
    could thus send an <active/> notification to the XMPP user when the
    SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session (i.e., after F6 in
    Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage might be unexpected
    by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning of an informal chat
    session.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:33:01 -0700

Proposed text:

Peter

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:16:31 -0600

On 3/5/15 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>> Please refer to 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

Seems reasonable. I suppose the other possibility is to send an 
<inactive/> notification at the beginning, and send the <active/> with 
the first message. But either way, the above works.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:16:31 -0600

pr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:15:04 -0700

On 3/5/15 9:16 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> the first message.

That feels weird. :-)

> But either way, the above works.

Super.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:15:04 -0700

That feels weird. :-)

Super.

Peter