[Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

Sam Hartman wrote:

> Personally I think I liked the original jabberid concept better
> all of these concepts seem acceptable and the important thing in
> my mind is for us to pick one and standardize it.

IMO the im/pres I-Ds are on "DNP track".  xmpp: offers full I18N,
Peter mentioned that only xmpp: bothered to get im/pres registry
entries, I vaguely recall that xmpp: also supports SIP somehow,
and the new I-D.saintandre-jabberid-07 is ready for publication.

IANA knows how to create two header field registry entries for
two protocols.  I think it should be a "permanent" header field:

| The assignment policy for such registration is "Specification 
| Required", as defined by RFC 2434 [3], where the specification
| must be published in an RFC (standards-track, experimental, 
| informational or historic), or as an "Open Standard" in the
| sense of RFC 2026, section 7 [1].

Note "informational" => good enough for "permanent".  I don't
see why this needs "Author/Change controller: XMPP Registrar",
the underlying xmpp: URI RFCs are anyway controlled by the IETF.

For Received-SPF we switched from "SPF Council" to "IETF" after
deciding to go for PS instead of "experimental", and after the
IESG flipped draft-schlitt back to "experimental" we kept the
"Author/Change controller: IETF" for this header field anyway.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers