Subject: Re: [Stox] Extended WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04 [was: WGLC for draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04]

From: Waqas Hussain <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 17:01:42 -0400

On Apr 24, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Yana Stamcheva wrote:

Hello all,

Only one review has been received on this list during the WGLC
(Thanks Philipp!) and in order to be able to proceed we would need
more people to express their support for this document!

Therefore, we hereby would like to extend the WGLC period with 2
more weeks and end it on May 5, 2014.

Please, if you'd like this document to go forward, send your
reviews, comments or support notes to the list before May 5, 2014!

If you're willing to review the document but for some reason you
won't be able to do it before the above deadline, please contact
the chairs.

The mapping looks sane. I have not implemented it though.

--
Waqas Hussain

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 16:16:19 -0400

I took a look at this. Disclaimer: It's been a long time since the 
simple-chat work was done and I haven't been involved with it since. So 
maybe I have forgotten or missed something.

Section 4:

Both F4 and F5 are 200 OK messages! It appears that F5 is unintended - 
it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere.

In a variety of places in the MSRP examples:

The "gr=" URI parameter is used with sip URIs. It seems to be carrying 
nicknames. I don't know where that usage is coming from - it doesn't 
seem to come from draft-ietf-simple-chat-18. Should probably check with 
one of the authors of simple-chat about this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:51:38 -0600

> it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere.

Yes, that's an extraneous line.

> one of the authors of simple-chat about this.

We do talk about the GRUU mapping in the stox-core spec (now RFC 7247). 
Here the GRUU valies (MUC) are mapping resourceparts of full JIDs, which 
in XMPP Multi-User Chat also serve as nicknames.

So, for instance, this is a mere resourcepart for a user's connected device:

    Contact: <sip:[email-masked]>;gr=balcony

Whereas this is a resourcepart functioning as a MUC nickname:

    sip:[email-masked];gr=Romeo

Preserving this information from the XMPP side of the gateway seems like 
a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), but I am not sure if a 
standard MSRP implementation would make use of the information. Checking 
with the authors of draft-ietf-simple-chat seems like a reasonable thing 
to do.

Saúl, what does your implementation do with the GRUU in both cases (mere 
resourcepart and MUC nickname)?

Peter

---

From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:51:59 +0200

On May 27, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> We do talk about the GRUU mapping in the stox-core spec (now RFC 7247). Here the GRUU valies (MUC) are mapping resourceparts of full JIDs, which in XMPP Multi-User Chat also serve as nicknames.
> 
> Preserving this information from the XMPP side of the gateway seems like a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), but I am not sure if a standard MSRP implementation would make use of the information. Checking with the authors of draft-ietf-simple-chat seems like a reasonable thing to do.
> 
> Saúl, what does your implementation do with the GRUU in both cases (mere resourcepart and MUC nickname)?
> 

Hi,

Mere resourcepart is translated to a full JID. When using MUC, 2 things happen: the address is translated to a bare JID and a NICKNAME chunk is sent over MSRP in order to join the groupchat. The occupant JID is translated to a GRUU, which can be used for private messaging.

Hope that helps!

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects