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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Mon, 26 November 2012 22:48 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 8D7AF21F8548; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, 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 EegiHdPCYsML; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729C521F8542; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Td7Tf-00049F-5E; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:35 +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 1Td7Tf-0005Ko-0d; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:35 +0000
Message-ID: <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:45:24 +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: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F758CD6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B3D146.3080506@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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:40 -0000

On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical.

Is this strictly true?  After all, doesn't XMPP still require use of 
jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP streams?

My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back later:
[[
    Definition of XML Stanza:  An XML stanza is the basic unit of meaning
       in XMPP.  A stanza is a first-level element (at depth=1 of the
       stream) whose element name is "message", "presence", or "iq" and
       whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server'.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1

In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very limited URI 
scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and jabber:client) for use in XMPP 
streams.  No other URIs or uses for this scheme are sanctioned.

#g
--

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4
>
> On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> Looping the XMPP wg list.  If we register it, let's make sure that
>> registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE".
>>
>> On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>; wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they
>>>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client"
>>>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf.
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication
>>>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace
>>>>>> prefix).
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd
>>>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML
>>>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme,
>>>>> just a mistake. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm
>>>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that
>>>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but
>>>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think
>>>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:'
>>>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the
>>>> documentation explain what's going on.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we
>>>> have documented that in
>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>;.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix
>>> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces...
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Saint-Andre
>>> https://stpeter.im/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>