IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 27 November 2012 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308F221F85FF; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpun8rJeTNE5; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A6021F8562; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B44C640092; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:17:36 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B4E67A.80502@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:12:42 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F758CD6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:12:44 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/27/12 8:51 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> To be clear about this, are you saying that the apparent
> requirement in RFC6120 to use namespace jabber:server or
> jabber:client for "message", "presence" or "iq" stanzas no longer
> applies?  If I were implementing XMPP based on what I read here, I
> would think that these namespaces *are* required, which suggests a
> problem with the XMPP spec.

Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 (and RFC
6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster).

> (I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be
> urn: URIs I ignored them for this discussion.)

Other old namespaces currently in use are jabber:iq:last,
jabber:x:conference, jabber:iq:private, jabber:iq:version,
jabber:iq:register, jabber:iq:rpc, jabber:iq:oob,
jabber:component:accept, jabber:component:connect, jabber:iq:privacy,
and jabber:x:data.

After we deprecated the jabber:* form and before we started using
URN-based namespaces (see RFC 4854), we also used HTTP URIs at the
jabber.org domain.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC05noACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwl6wCeP7BmC00OhDOk+GjSCH4a4j+w
DrsAoNNhzKk3GYYZH+pXovEUqxbSz94u
=dbH4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email