Subject: [Stox] WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-presence-05

From: Yana Stamcheva <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:36:06 +0200

The editors and the chairs believe that the following draft is now ready and hereby start a 2-week Working Group Last Call for:

draft-ietf-stox-presence-05 : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stox-presence-05

The WGLC ends on October 22, 2013.

Please review the document and bring any remaining issues, or issues whose resolution is not satisfactory, to the attention of the Working Group on this list before October 22. If after reviewing the document you find it complete and do not have any comments, please send a note to that effect as well.

Regards,
Yana Stamcheva & Markus Isomaki

---

From: Philipp Hancke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:43:25 +0200

> Please review the document and bring any remaining issues, or issues whose resolution is not satisfactory, to the attention of the Working Group on this list before October 22. If after reviewing t…

LGTM, with the usual nits:

- 3.2.1 Establishing
   should probably mention what is established (a presence 
subscription), same for the rest of the section headers, also in 3.3.

- "Upon receiving the first NOTIFY with a subscription state of 
active..." -- I wanted to comment that the xmpp subscription state 
should be none+out, but it's no longer clear to me whether I am assuming 
too much intelligence in the gateway.

- after example 8, should the unsubscribed stana be sent when receiving 
an ack for that (which is not shown)? It doesn't matter much however.

- "or, if a subscription already exists in the XMPP user's roster, 
discard the subscribe request" -- I think 6121 says the server should 
send subscribed without bothering the user. Simplifies the following 
paragraph.

- "translating the NOTIFU" before example 20 is a typo obviously.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:51:11 -0600

On 10/17/13 3:43 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> Please review the document and bring any remaining issues, or issues
>> whose resolution is not satisfactory, to the attention of the Working
>> Group on this list before October 22. If after reviewing the document
>> you find it complete and do not have any comments, please send a note
>> to that effect as well.
> 
>   should probably mention what is established (a presence subscription),
> same for the rest of the section headers, also in 3.3.

Yes. I think it would be good to modify the main section headings too,
as follows:

   3.  Subscriptions to Presence Information

   4.  Notifications of Presence Information

   5.  Requests for Presence Information

> too much intelligence in the gateway.

Agreed. I would hope the gateways don't need to be that smart.

> an ack for that (which is not shown)? It doesn't matter much however.

Hmm, I don't know if it's necessary for the gateway to receive an ack
from the SIP users before sending the unsubscribed.

> send subscribed without bothering the user. Simplifies the following

True. That's better...

   In accordance with [RFC6121], the XMPP user's server MUST deliver the
   presence subscription request to the XMPP user (or, if a subscription
   already exists in the XMPP user's roster, send a presence stanza of
   type 'subscribed').

> - "translating the NOTIFU" before example 20 is a typo obviously.

Indeed.

Thanks for the review!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/