Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging
draft-ietf-stox-im-13

[Ballot comment]
I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that.

I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw XMPP.

It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the gateway. If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier than a Note: halfway through page 5.

Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section would be fine).

[Ballot comment]


- I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-)

- The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? I mean
because nobody really does that afaik. If someone does do it
(I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then
maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really
uncommon, or some such.

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 4 --

  stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is
  defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the
  'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form
  "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]).

I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of something from 6121.

-- Section 8 --
Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that.  This section say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language tagging from one into the other.  Is that intentional?

My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-im-12, 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.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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): Instant Messaging) 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): Instant
  Messaging'
  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 2015-03-02. 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


  This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the
  exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation
  Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
  (XMPP).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

========================================================

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

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 defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single
instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

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.
All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the
document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific
mapping definition and 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
Alissa Cooper.

(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. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor.

There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined
by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document
shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document.

(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 requests no actions 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.

The document contains a few XML code examples, which have been
mechanically verified.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

========================================================

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

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 defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single
instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

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.
All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the
document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific
mapping definition and 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
Alissa Cooper.

(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. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor.

There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined
by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document
shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document.

(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 requests no actions 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.

The document contains a few XML code examples, which have been
mechanically verified.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

========================================================

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10

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 defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

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. All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific mapping definition and 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 Alissa Cooper.

(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. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor.

There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document.

(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 requests no actions 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.

The document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically verified.