IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 18 December 2018 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00AE131164 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:24:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkLJKsdvrJiT for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBA69130EC9 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBIHOAau098000 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:24:12 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545153855; bh=XVNlwoFXC/MJ5OtFS6q7wtS6ikewaN6HDDpKU8D2ItY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=MsPbb1qsu83Qp4l2KmSUuB4J2HmPX1sulEtPLgQniJhzZiRNF2fxFumjbLXyqP1LQ igP0C5k31XGDPgD0smKZLAxf5SAoPGisSlin+0X73zFgo5EmZ7shmXOVjg0Xljv0xm btSvBLhzWUbVFWHjiir+VPprVNGdkWlHQxwzQiGo=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <art@ietf.org>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
References: <f49638dc-4a0e-e03d-7e91-b968a1217679@redhat.com> <CACweHNBps_O0JqAUFj5FD3V+LzbTWUKNKuFzKk82WR+33b8seA@mail.gmail.com> <45967886-f3f4-12b8-75b7-2b9199e59bfa@gmx.de> <114E58B9-0CB4-4B98-B6C8-D2B84879EE6B@mnot.net> <1FC45B47B703AED3FAE346F4@PSB> <19f1968e-e110-e26f-7639-bf57605f940e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <43cc02ad-9ff0-bdd6-47a7-ae7ed24f0921@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:24:05 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19f1968e-e110-e26f-7639-bf57605f940e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/1w5Ki9Saz4vIOm4X0q4T-M7IvZA>
Subject: Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:24:18 -0000

On 12/18/18 2:53 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> The 'mailto:' scheme is about as non-standard an URI scheme as there is,


Just for clarification, I'm not sure that's true. Off the top of my 
head, schemes like 'sip:' 'tel:', 'xmpp:', 'im:', 'iax:', 'jabber:', 
'h323:', 'msrp:', 'pres:', 'sms:', 'mms:', and their various secure 
variants have very similar properties for the purposes of this 
conversation (and that's ignoring a host of provisional schemes like 
'aim:' and 'facetime:').

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email