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

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
> Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
> features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes

Two schemes with a semantics somewhere between about: and file: ...
if I am interested in pres:juliet@example.com, can say Psi help me ?

>> 2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ?
> Presumably people who want to show presence icons next to the names
> of message authors.

Okay, but Gmail can manage that without a fancy Pres-ID: mail header
field.  I also don't quite believe in this separation "feature".

>> 3 - what about Netnews ?
> Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted)

Thanks.

>> 4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ?
> That is still to be determined.

You've now demonstrated your good will wrt im: and pres:, after
that exercise please let's continue with the jabberid.  It was
almost perfect, "experimental" status is also okay.

>> 5 - jabberid had an interesting IRI example, the new
>>     drafts claim that juliet@example.com is an URI.
> For good or for ill, the pres: and im: URI schemes reuse the 
> "mailbox" construct from RFC 2822. Or something like that

For ill, they imitate mailto:.  But what I meant in (5) was a
syntactical nit, juliet@example.com is no URI, you forgot the
scheme, as in im:juliet@example.com

> In any case non-US-ASCII characters would need to be handled
> as is traditional in email systems, as far as I can see.

"mailto-ter" (my name for a successor of mailto-bis supporting
EAI) is a _very_ hard case.  And mailto-bis is also a _very_
hard case.  Don't hold your breath.

IFF mailto-bis survives a Last Call, and IFF im/pres follow
suite, and IFF 2822bis reduces its NO-WS-CTL horrors, and IFF
EAI reaches "experimental", then might be a good time to look
at im/pres again.  

>> 6 - I've never seen a pres: URI outside of RFC 3859,
>>     why should I wish to see this in a mail header ?
> Because it is a more generic solution.

Okay, I've to check if Psi has a "be more generic" option :-)

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels

Some SRV magic, does it work wrt xmpp ?  Apparently there
is no _xmpp.stpeter.im.  "SRV" is still a mystery for me.

>> if I recall discussions with Paul and Martin on the
>> URI list about RFC 2368 (mailto) correctly. 
> I do not recall that discussion.

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/578>  Sorry,
it was Bruce and Paul, Matin was in other mailto-threads.

 Frank

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