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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 26 November 2012 20:30 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 5FFA721F8651; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 tZ4yksbn12JM; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF67221F863B; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD4DB40092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:34:50 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:58 -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: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F758CD6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F758CD6@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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:30:01 -0000

Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4

On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> Looping the XMPP wg list.  If we register it, let's make sure that
> registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE".
> 
> On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>; wrote:
> 
>> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they
>>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client"
>>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf.
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication
>>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace
>>>>> prefix).
>>>>
>>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd
>>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML
>>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme,
>>>> just a mistake. :)
>>>>
>>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm
>>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that
>>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but
>>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered?
>>>>
>>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think
>>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:'
>>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the
>>> documentation explain what's going on.
>>>
>>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we
>>> have documented that in
>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>;.
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix
>> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces...
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss