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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 29 November 2012 04:51 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 91B6A1F0C80; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, 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 pxuK9Yy3LnDk; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD69B1F0C59; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D93AF40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:56:31 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B6E9D8.5090109@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:51:36 -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: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E371700C3@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <gokdb8hcanf2j32jc0rern9am6tgf8sr2s@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> <f1pdb89cmbdqqkvk8jo5sv7olbddv1a4qs@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <f1pdb89cmbdqqkvk8jo5sv7olbddv1a4qs@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:51:34 -0000

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

On 11/28/12 9:37 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 11/28/12 8:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> URI scheme syntax. The only allowable strings are: -
>>>> jabber:client [...]
>>> 
>>> I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids
>>> speculation whether "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are
>>> actually prohibited by this and whether it is okay for
>>> individual schemes to specify such constraints. Simply saying,
>>> for example, these strings are used as XML namespace names and
>>> the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do.
>> 
>> I thought that was clear from the section on semantics:
> 
> The problem are the conformance requirements implied by
> "allowable". If you develop a URI Validator and add support for the
> 'jabber' scheme, it is not clear whether strings like
> "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient", or even "jabber:client#"
> should be rejected. These strings are not on the list of
> "allowable" strings, so some will argue they ought to be re- 
> jected, while others will argue per RFC 3986 they ought to be
> accepted.

They ought to be rejected.

Please understand that these namespace names are sent only as the
value of 'xmlns' in XMPP streams. They are not in general use anywhere
else. XMPP software implementations know what to do with them (and I
really doubt that they pass these strings to URI parsers anyway). This
is basically a whitelist of known strings and they are not treated as
URIs anywhere in the XMPP ecosystem.

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/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC26dgACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx73QCg8IPhO/puyypHDL41ZZ1Z3XlQ
prgAnjhEfcEOk204/l3yVi5ABbEJkECh
=7RQd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----