Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling
draft-ietf-stox-core-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-15
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-05-12
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-24
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-02-28
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-02-27
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-26
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-26
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-02-14
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-02-13
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-02-11
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-11.txt |
2014-02-11
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling my discuss point so quickly! - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when … [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling my discuss point so quickly! - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when I thought that said "X25 gw" (I guess I really do need glasses, sigh:-) - Labelling the figures might be good. - Has anyone thought about confusability in the name mappings? I expected to see a bit of text in the security considerations but didn't see it. |
2014-02-11
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-02-10
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-02-10
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-02-10
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-10.txt |
2014-02-09
|
09 | Pete Resnick | Notification list changed to : stox-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-core@tools.ietf.org, stpeter@stpeter.im |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] Oops, I put this in as a DISCUSS because I wanted to DISCUSS it, but it doesn't meet the DISCUSS criteria, so I've … [Ballot comment] Oops, I put this in as a DISCUSS because I wanted to DISCUSS it, but it doesn't meet the DISCUSS criteria, so I've cleared. Sorry for the confusion. I'd still like you to address this, obviously. In the architectural diagram on page 5, it appears that the way the protocol flow goes is that romeo's server sends XMPP to juliet's server, and juliet's server responds with SIP. I don't think this is what you intended—I think that what you intended is that either romeo or juliet could initiate a connection; if romeo initiates, the communication will occur using XMPP, and if juliet initiates, it will occur using SIP. |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Lemon has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot discuss] In the architectural diagram on page 5, it appears that the way the protocol flow goes is that romeo's server sends XMPP to … [Ballot discuss] In the architectural diagram on page 5, it appears that the way the protocol flow goes is that romeo's server sends XMPP to juliet's server, and juliet's server responds with SIP. I don't think this is what you intended—I think that what you intended is that either romeo or juliet could initiate a connection; if romeo initiates, the communication will occur using XMPP, and if juliet initiates, it will occur using SIP. You can clear this DISCUSS either by clarifying the diagram by emphasizing that it works the way I assume it doesn't, if that's the case, or by making it clear that the arrows indicate the direction of initiation, not the direction of communication after initiation, or by convincing me that no clarification is needed, which is perfectly possible. |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] (Having now read stox-presence, I'm going to make this a DISCUSS point in order to make sure we do have a chat about … [Ballot discuss] (Having now read stox-presence, I'm going to make this a DISCUSS point in order to make sure we do have a chat about this point.) - I wondered why you didn't just say that (D)TLS SHOULD be used/supported between gateways. Given that all the relevant bits of code are likely to support that, wouldn't it be a good thing? |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when I thought that said "X25 gw" (I guess … [Ballot comment] - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when I thought that said "X25 gw" (I guess I really do need glasses, sigh:-) - Labelling the figures might be good. - Has anyone thought about confusability in the name mappings? I expected to see a bit of text in the security considerations but didn't see it. - It seems a shame to not be able to gateway when the To is a sips URI at all but I understand that some loss of security is inevitable for cases like this. Is there any work planned for an update that would allow gatewaying for such cases, e.g. if the 1st XMPP server is the one to which the user is connected and the user is connected using XMPP/TLS? |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when I thought that said "X25 gw" (I guess … [Ballot comment] - End of s4: "X2S gw" - on a small screen I nearly jumped when I thought that said "X25 gw" (I guess I really do need glasses, sigh:-) - Labelling the figures might be good. - Has anyone thought about confusability in the name mappings? I expected to see a bit of text in the security considerations but didn't see it. - It seems a shame to not be able to gateway when the To is a sips URI at all but I understand that some loss of security is inevitable for cases like this. Is there any work planned for an update that would allow gatewaying for such cases, e.g. if the 1st XMPP server is the one to which the user is connected and the user is connected using XMPP/TLS? - I wondered why you didn't just say that (D)TLS SHOULD be used/supported between gateways. Given that all the relevant bits of code are likely to support that, wouldn't it be a good thing? |
2014-02-06
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I assume this is a typo re encrypted/protected: Because XMPP lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be … [Ballot comment] I assume this is a typo re encrypted/protected: Because XMPP lacks a way to signal that all hops need to be encrypted, Https doesn't necessarily imply encryption it depends on the cipher suite chosen. |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot comment] Need to change affiliation for Peter Saint-Andre? |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Section 4 is (nicely) clear on the document architecturally describing a gateway. However, traditionally a gateway is transparent to the entity that communicates … [Ballot comment] Section 4 is (nicely) clear on the document architecturally describing a gateway. However, traditionally a gateway is transparent to the entity that communicates with it: When we had SMTP-to-X.400 gateways, the gateway appeared as just another SMTP system that noticed special qualities of the address and then routed the messages appropriately. Section 5 describes something a bit different. It's not clear that what section 5 describes actually is part of the gateway, but rather sounds like a combined server which does failover between the protocols. I don't think this is a showstopper, but it might help implementers significantly if you described in section 5 *where* in the model this function occurs. Right now, it sounds like the server itself does the addressing failover, not the gateway. |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-04
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-02-04
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-02-04
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-02-04
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-31
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-01-31
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-01-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-06 |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::External Party |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot has been issued |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-21
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Waiting for Writeup::External Party from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-09.txt |
2013-12-11
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-11
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-core version 08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-core version 08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-12-11
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-11) |
2013-12-10
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-08.txt |
2013-12-09
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2013-11-28
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2013-11-28
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2013-11-28
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-11-28
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Interworking between the Session Initiation … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the SIP-TO-XMPP WG (stox) to consider the following document: - 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract As a foundation for the definition of bidirectional protocol mappings between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), this document specifies the architectural assumptions underlying such mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error conditions. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-core/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-core/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call was requested |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-11-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-core-07 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org) (1) What type of RFC is being requested … PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-core-07 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the fondation underlying the bidirectional protocol mappings between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Because of the wide deployment of both technologies it is important to clearly define mappings between them for the sake of interworking. This document inaugurates a series of SIP-XMPP interworking specifications by defining the architectural assumptions underlying such mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error conditions. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. There were no controversial points regarding it. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Gonzalo Camarillo. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been out for a few years and was subjected to thorough reviews. All reviewers' comments have been addressed. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure that references this document has been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.00. There is a warning about the date which is innocuous as well as a warning about an outdated reference to an earlier version of a draft. Both will be addressed by the RFC Editor. There's also a possible down-reference warning, but it seems a false positive, because it is a reference to UNICODE, which is indeed a normative reference in this case. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document makes no requests of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No reviews or automated checks were required as this document does not use any formal language requiring such. |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | State Change Notice email list changed to stox-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-core@tools.ietf.org |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | Responsible AD changed to Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | Document shepherd changed to Yana Stamcheva |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-11-26
|
07 | Yana Stamcheva | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-18
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-07.txt |
2013-09-30
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-06.txt |
2013-09-25
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-05.txt |
2013-09-05
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-04.txt |
2013-08-21
|
03 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-03.txt |
2013-08-19
|
02 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-02.txt |
2013-08-03
|
01 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-01.txt |
2013-07-01
|
00 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-core-00.txt |