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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

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:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/27/12 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" <[e-mail]> 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
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlC08vAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOcQCeJ8C2wtz74nbUX3N8/K4rl1y6
> XVQAoK/MHyRz8Sfx4FmHag/xGHcw7tdh
> =lR0y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>