Subject: Re: [Stox] [dispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-im-03.txt

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 13:30:49 -0600

On 4/7/13 10:43 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I did a quick read of this version, in section 4, shouldn't we be
> looking at the RURI, instead of the To header?

I don't quite understand your statement. Could you expand it a bit or
propose specific text that you think needs to change?

Thanks!

Peter

---

From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 22:26:44 +0200

> propose specific text that you think needs to change?

Hi!

Section 4 has the following text:

" Therefore
   we assume that the To header of a request received by a SIMPLE-XMPP
   gateway will contain a sip: or sips: URI.  The gateway SHOULD resolve
   that address to an im: URI for SIP MESSAGE requests,"

I think we should say RURI instead of To header there, because the To header is not used for routing and in case of GRUU usage (like in the example) the only way for a request to be properly routed would be to put it in the RURI. So I'd say:

" Therefore
   we assume that the  Request-URI of a request received by a SIMPLE-XMPP
   gateway will contain a sip: or sips: URI.  The gateway SHOULD resolve
   that address to an im: URI for SIP MESSAGE requests,"

Cheers,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 20:23:16 -0600

>    that address to an im: URI for SIP MESSAGE requests,"

Yes, that is better. Thanks for the correction. To track this fix, I've
also updated Table 5 in source control.

Peter