Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Tue, 8 Jul 2014 00:57:55 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.xmpp,gmane.ietf.gen-art
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Thanks for the review, Dan.

I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points that you raised.

Jari

On 02 Jul 2014, at 09:00, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>  
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>  
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>  
> Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket/
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 7/2/2014
> IETF LC End Date: 7/4/2014
> IESG Telechat date: 7/10/2014
>  
> Summary: ready with minor issues
>  
> Major issues:
>  
> None
>  
> Minor issues:
>  
> 1.       In order to accommodate the Websocket binding this document describes several deviations from RFC6120. For example, in Section 3.3 it says:
> The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of
>    constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by
>    adopting the message framing provided by WebSocket to delineate the
>    stream open and close headers, stanzas, and other top-level stream
>    elements.
>               I am wondering whether it would not be appropriate to reflect this in the document header by adding Updates RFC6120
>  
> 2.       In Section 3.6.1:
>  
>    If the server wishes at any point to instruct the client to move to a
>    different WebSocket endpoint (e.g. for load balancing purposes), the
>    server MAY send a <close/> element and set the "see-other-uri"
>    attribute to the URI of the new connection endpoint (which MAY be for
>    a different transport method, such as BOSH (see [XEP-0124] and
>    [XEP-0206]).
>  
>         I do not understand the usage of MAY in this paragraph. Is there another method to move to a different Web socket endpoint that is described here or some other place? In not, why is not the first MAY at least a SHOULD? The second usage seems to describe a state of facts, so it needs not be capitalized at all.
>  
>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  
> In Section 3.1 I believe that the example should be preceded by some text that indicates that this is an example, such as: ‘An example of a successful handshake and start of session follows:’
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
xmpp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 842 B)