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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 28 November 2012 18:57 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 9D04221F86A3; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, 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 k59-wq24dWNe; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3E021F867A; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7736E40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:01:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:57:01 -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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org>
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>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "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: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:57:00 -0000

Something like this seems reasonable:

   URI scheme name.
      jabber
   Status.
      permanent
   URI scheme syntax.
      jabberuri = "jabber" ":" 1*(ALPHA) [ ":" 1*(ALPHA) ]
   URI scheme semantics.
      Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were used as
      XML namespaces during development of the technology
      that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence
      Protocol (XMPP).  The scheme was never used for any
      other purpose.  The only namespace names minted with
      this scheme were:
      - jabber:client
      - jabber:component:accept
      - jabber:component:connect
      - jabber:iq:auth
      - jabber:iq:gateway
      - jabber:iq:last
      - jabber:iq:oob
      - jabber:iq:privacy
      - jabber:iq:private
      - jabber:iq:register
      - jabber:iq:roster
      - jabber:iq:rpc
      - jabber:iq:search
      - jabber:iq:version
      - jabber:server
      - jabber:x:conference
      - jabber:x:data
      - jabber:x:encrypted
      - jabber:x:oob
      - jabber:x:signed
      No other strings were minted, and no other strings
      shall be minted.
   Encoding considerations.
      Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams.
   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name.
      Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
   Interoperability considerations.
      The 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or
      enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp'
      scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such
      cases.
   Security considerations.
      See Section 13 of RFC 6120.
   Contact.
      Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>;
   Author/Change controller.
      XMPP WG <xmpp@ietf.org>;
   References.
      RFC 6120

On 11/28/12 11:06 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Peter, all,
> 
> I don't think it even needs to be a draft.  XMPP spec already exists, so
> we should just be able to submit the registration template to IANA.
> 
> I was thinking I'd try and draft something and run it by you (but don't
> hold your breath).
> 
> #g
> -- 
> 
> On 27/11/2012 17:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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