Re: [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-11

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 04:54 PM 9/22/2011, Ben Campbell wrote:
>I tend to agree with StPeter on the "pres" part. 
>But, I think there's still two issues--one I 
>already mentioned, and a possible new one:
>
>1) If you get an XMPP (address, or URI), what 
>are you going to do with it? The following guidance:
>
>"Responses to requests for URIs with other 
>schemes ("sip", "sips", "http", and "https") 
>MUST have MIME type 'application/pidf+xml'."
>
>… is not applicable "out of the box" to XMPP. It 
>needs quite a bit more elaboration. I'm okay 
>with making that "for future study", but it 
>would at least need to be called out separately.

hmm... this seems more complicated by the minute


>2) If you get a "pres" URI and allow it to 
>resolve to either SIP(s) or XMPP, how do you select which?

SIP Location Conveyance has a mechanism on how to 
pick between the SIP group (sip, sips, pres) and 
the http group (http, https), so if #2 allows a 
pick between sip and pres, there is a way to pick 
sip(s) (or pres).  There is no means to pick xmpp 
in SIP Location Conveyance though... to get this, 
we would have to create a new SIP option tag for 
the choice, and then use (i.e., follow) the 
existing mechanism in Location Conveyance. That 
should work with, i.e., it's pretty straightforward.


>On Sep 22, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
> > So I IMed with StPeter - his reaction is "someone's implemented pres:?"
> >
> > Anyhow, my suggestion for now is to say "See 
> RFC3922 for using the pres: URI with XMPP" and I'll make sure
> > we get good review of that during last call.

BTW - I copied this quoted line and added the normative reference.

James


> >
> > RjS
> >
> > On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ben -
> >>>
> >>> Can we tap your SIMPLE/XMPP guidance to 
> help us wrestle with the following point in 
> draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option?
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:18 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> >>> <snip/>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 8) Why does section 3.3 rule out the use of XMPP with pres: URIs?
> >>>>
> >>>> huh... don't know...? What's the RFC I 
> should point at for this? Is it 5122?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think the right place to point might be 
> RFC3922 - is there a better one?
> >>
> >> 3922 is what you want for converting a 
> "pres" URI to an XMPP address. 5122 is what you 
> want if you want to include a "native" XMPP 
> URI. (Keep in mind, XMPP does not really use URIs natively)
> >>
> >> The bigger question to me is, can you 
> dereference an XMPP address and expect it to do 
> the right thing for a location URI? If so, how--is that documented somewhere?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> RjS
> >