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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 29 November 2012 04:10 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 90EED21F89AB; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, 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 TE6j0D4SrK9a; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AEA21F89A7; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F14540062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:15:44 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:10:49 -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: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E371700C3@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <gokdb8hcanf2j32jc0rern9am6tgf8sr2s@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <gokdb8hcanf2j32jc0rern9am6tgf8sr2s@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:10:48 -0000

On 11/28/12 8:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> So here is the registration...
>>
>> ###
>>
>>   URI scheme name.
>>      jabber
>>
>>   Status.
>>      permanent
>>
>>   URI scheme syntax.
>>      The only allowable strings are:
>>      - jabber:client
>> [...]
> 
> I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids speculation whether
> "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are actually prohibited by this and
> whether it is okay for individual schemes to specify such constraints.
> Simply saying, for example, these strings are used as XML namespace
> names and the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do.

I thought that was clear from the section on semantics:

      Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were
      used as XML namespace names 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 are listed above.  No other
      strings were minted, and no other strings shall be
      minted.  Note that defining new URI schemes for XML
      namespaces is now discouraged.  The 'jabber' scheme
      was defined before standard best practices emerged.

Do you think we need to make this clear also under syntax? For instance
we could add a sentence like the following at the end of the syntax section:

      These strings are used literally as shown, with the
      specified case (e.g., "jabber" not "JABBER") and no
      possibility of percent-encoding (e.g., the string
      "jabber:%63lient" is not allowed and is not equivalent
      to or transformed into the string "jabber:client").

We could also perhaps make the semantics section even clearer, such as:

      Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were
      minted for use as XML namespace names during development
      of the technology that became the Extensible Messaging
      and Presence Protocol (XMPP).  Note well that defining
      new URI schemes for XML namespaces is now discouraged,
      and that the 'jabber' scheme was (inadvertently) created
      before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces.
      The 'jabber' scheme was never used for any purpose other
      than XML namespace names, and is not designed or intended
      for any other use.  In particular, 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.  The only namespace names
      minted with this scheme are listed in the syntax definition
      section of this registration.  No other names were minted,
      and new names shall not be minted (i.e., the scheme is closed
      to generation of new URIs).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/