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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 07 November 2007 09:55 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iphcj-0000ST-Ac; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:55:01 -0500
Received: from ietf-message-headers by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iphci-0000SO-BA for; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:55:00 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iphch-0000SG-OP for; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:54:59 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iphce-0000y1-3X for; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:54:59 -0500
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF8540081; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 02:54:49 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:56:19 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt
References: <> <fgq9pj$ksq$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
OpenPGP: id=7BBD0573; url=
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 501044f827b673024f6a4cb1d46e67d2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1556203567=="

SM wrote:
> At 12:03 06-11-2007, 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 (as
>> defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.
> I read draft-saintandre-header-im-00.  I must have missed
> draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.

I submitted both of the following:

> I hope there's not going to be a new header each time there's a new
> feature. :-)

I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.

>> > 9 - Likewise RFC 3860.  I hope you're not trying to
>> >     move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields.
>> By no means. I am trying to address feedback received during the Last
>> Call on draft-saintandre-jabberid. Part of that feedback raised the
>> issue of working on a more generic solution that is not tied to a
>> specific instant messaging and presence technology (in this case, XMPP).
>> These I-Ds are my good-faith attempt at fulfilling my promise to work on
>> a more generic solution.
> Could we have only one I-D which is extensible to encompass all these
> schemes?  I assume that will be draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.

What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
distinct domains of functionality, which just happen to often be
implemented and deployed in the same systems or services.

> BTW, the Author's address in your draft seems incomplete.

Because it doesn't include every URI scheme under the sun? ;-)


Peter Saint-Andre

Ietf-message-headers mailing list