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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----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" <[e-mail]> 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-----