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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Wed, 28 November 2012 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
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 548C621F8415; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Swe4wHWciRcW; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED6821F84DC; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1TdmN6-00074E-U5; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:32 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1TdmN6-0005dq-0K; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:32 +0000
Message-ID: <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:06:31 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
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 18:28:38 -0000

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" <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
>
> - --
> 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-----
>