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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 27 November 2012 17:05 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 0E7F121F846A; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, 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 oMnWJ1jgNBmI; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D040721F85EF; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C7BA40092; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:10:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:05:52 -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: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
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>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@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 17:05:54 -0000

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

On 11/27/12 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>; wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120
>>> (and RFC 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster).
>> 
>> OK, that's what I originally thought.  In which case, I think the
>> text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of
>> these jabber: URIs is still required (and others as you note
>> below).
>> 
>> I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI
>> scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a
>> note that no more jabber: URIs should be minted.
> 
> (as individual)
> 
> As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or similar, I
> don't really care what status the doc has.  Let's not bog down.
> 
> (as XMPP co-chair)
> 
> This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write
> an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will
> probably stick.

I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will find
time to bang that out before the end of the year.

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/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC08vAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOcQCeJ8C2wtz74nbUX3N8/K4rl1y6
XVQAoK/MHyRz8Sfx4FmHag/xGHcw7tdh
=lR0y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----