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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Mon, 26 November 2012 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
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 3601621F860A; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 6Ob1EFvxkkG0; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496E521F8619; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2315; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1353961675; x=1355171275; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=E6PfVRxviFiI6fWicdnVSF0aa+hKDF3AVZr5OkLLA1U=; b=A3zXshaWaSbjUn2PQ6wEhDIWhTIXRVf5P7wI7bql9NIcXE/Pm7y0tSEx 5Kd13iIdWTtzFoxzwRCO08lENrWVc+9BE6NxFelcZFsb+GbMy9w0K3V/7 fpICsxVj3kNsdaa20KbWIQGVNodeJOjL0OyY0mosuyzqqVPewCYk9oMSa s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAI3Qs1CtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEwCQWc4IeAQEBBAEBATc0CxIBCBgKFDcLJQIEAQ0FCAGIBAzAW5AXYQOXHY8ogm+CHQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="143350997"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2012 20:27:53 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAQKRrPJ003283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.236]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:27:53 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?
Thread-Index: AQHNzBSCfRYVe/3F6Uu1oZkj94/60w==
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:52 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F758CD6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50B3B9EC.6010007@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.84]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A58E23D025BB6749B155FB7A9373229E@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:32:25 -0800
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:56 -0000

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
>



-- 
Joe Hildebrand