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/
- [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not register… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Barry Leiba
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not regi… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] XMPP jabber: URI scheme n… Peter Saint-Andre