Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-03 for -10)
No email
send info
- Figure 1 is way complicated. I guess it might just
need to be but it's fairly unreadable. If you think it
worth looking at again, then maybe dropping the outer
boundary "lines" might make it clearer.

- 5.4: is the use of ellipsis for the SIP version of
xmpp's "from" in table 3 sufficiently clear? Are there
any quote characters or other stuff that might be gotten
wrong? I wonder if the tables are a little too terse.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2015-03-02 for -10)
No email
send info
-- Section 5.5.2 --

   The XMPP message type ought to
   be "chat" (and is not allowed to be "groupchat").

I think this is fine, but because of your careful and measured use of 2119 throughout the document set, I wonder how this is meant to be different from 'and MUST NOT be "groupchat"'?

-- Section 5.8 --

I suggest:

   |    <status>Time to go!</status>

   |    <status>O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost</status>


-- Section 10 --
My comment in stox-chat applies here, as well, though I note that in this case you do not already have a reference to stox-im to work with.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-04 for -10)
No email
send info
4: There's a noun missing here:

   By contrast, in
   MSRP sessions (including groupchat sessions) are considered to be a
   type of media (similar to audio/video sessions)

The bullet list refers to "", but Figure 1 shows "".

The particular endpoints for both romeo and juliet are not shown in the figure, but the bullet list doesn't say, "not shown in diagram".

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-03 for -10)
No email
send info
Two question about this text out of the ACK section:
"Some text in this document was borrowed from [RFC7247] and from

This draft has the standard IETF copyright template upfront and 'borrows' text from [XEP-0045]. I assume borrows actually mean copying text, isn't it?

Do the authors and the responsible AD see any conflicts between the copyright of [XEP-0045] and the copyright of this document?

Are the borrowed text parts out of [XEP-0045] marked somehow? I could find the parts.