Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Presence
draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-14
Yes
(Ben Campbell)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-11-01 for -13)
Unknown
I was also a Yes on the draft that became RFC 7248, and this revision is a significant improvement (even beyond the corrected architecture). I especially appreciate the working group adding an actual introduction to the Introduction ...
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-01 for -13)
Unknown
Below is a small suggested edit for text in Section 9.2. I think the normative "MUST honor data about ..." construction is vague. OLD Therefore, a gateway MUST honor data about the intended recipient of a presence notification (as represented by the 'to' address for XMPP and by the Request-URI for SIP) and it MUST NOT route or deliver a presence notification to any other entities, because it does not possess information about authorization to receive presence notifications for such entities - that information resides at the user's home service, not at the receiving gateway). NEW Therefore, a gateway MUST NOT route or deliver a presence notification to any entity other than the intended recipient (as represented by the 'to' address for XMPP and by the Request-URI for SIP), because it does not possess information about authorization to receive presence notifications for such entities - that information resides at the user's home service, not at the receiving gateway).
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-31 for -13)
Unknown
Minor comment: The shepherd write-up says it's for version -05 (now -13).
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-01 for -13)
Unknown
Review based on diff vs 7248 [1] Thanks for adding 9.2. I agree with Alissa's comment. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc7248&url2=draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-13.txt
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown