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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Tue, 27 November 2012 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
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 CDAD221F851F; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Hp4533JtP2KM; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1596221F846B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=949; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354035866; x=1355245466; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GcosaTb200+aHMcRMxh+d2wOtno8JZEBZW99OF5Vky4=; b=giQt5P8VteGJMqO1SQRUmqyrPoxxldgIRu+XnrTguwh25YrycyVdtqqH TVXyyg81P6On/yLuAf6MdKBpenz4C19layQ94RpeayOCqeJPUZbp10Qb1 gMG2jnkqnwxAaNvgzSxCn/SX3UgSDXQrq6qrTuLrgM09AjTQg8IY2Dcrn o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0FAHvxtFCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABFhWK6PIEJgh4BAQEDATo/EgEIDhQUQiUCBAENBQiHfwawRpBLkBphA6ZFgnCCIA
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="146745122"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2012 17:04:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qARH4P2v004539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.236]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:04:25 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?
Thread-Index: AQHNzLkD4QLcs/TdaESDPBgLU8DDkJf+PzEAgAAGLoD//5LogA==
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50B4EBA9.8030700@ninebynine.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.84]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E7D501822CC0254A88936FF6DA6BB176@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:26 -0000

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.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand