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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 28 November 2012 22:10 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 E1F6C21F8946; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, 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 cQc7BvFCcuGl; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B5621F846A; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92AFF40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:14:58 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:10:02 -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: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E371700C3@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E371700C3@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
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 22:10:03 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Heh, I like that. :)

On 11/28/12 3:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> How about avoiding giving BNF which you then prohibit using? Just
> list them:
> 
> 
> URI scheme name jabber
> 
> Status: Permanent
> 
> URI scheme syntax: One of the following: - jabber:client -
> jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect -
> jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:last -
> jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private -
> jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc -
> jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server -
> jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:encrypted -
> jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:signed
> 
> URI scheme semantics. These URIs were used as   XML namespaces
> during development of the technology that became the Extensible
> Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used
> (and should not be used) for any other purpose; no other "jabber:"
> URIs shall be minted.
> 
> Encoding considerations. ASCII (UTF-8) within XMPP protocol
> streams.
> 
> Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name.
> 
> Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
> 
> 
> Interoperability considerations. 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.
> 
> 
> Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120.
> 
> 
> Contact. Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>;
> 
> 
> Author/Change controller. XMPP WG <xmpp@ietf.org>; References. RFC
> 6120
> 
> 


- -- 
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/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC2i7oACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyrhACfXsQdOCqgKe/xPnYixtz+nSwW
IrYAoIqCXBBpu9ymY87NvZRkwo3Oo22D
=FJhu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----