Subject: [xmpp] Fwd: Robert Sparks' No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:07:06 -0700

For the record, I'm forwarding this to the list.

/psa

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Robert Sparks' No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-21:
(with	COMMENT)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:22:30 -0800
From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Robert Sparks has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-21: 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.

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

-21 addresses my concerns and comments sufficiently.

I encourage future standarization of a mechanism to "fail this stanza if
it would go over a hop that isn't TLS protected".

I also encourage future work tightening the specification in section
10.5.3.2 around the words "SHOULD deliver to at least one of the
connected resources". I understand from email conversation that this
text was crafted to account for existing implementations of advanced
message delivery logic, but it leaves the door open to lazy or arbitrary
implementations (such as one that may just choose a connected resource
at random, or might use some ill-defined notion of "most recently
active"). This has been a source of bad user experience for me.