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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Tue, 27 November 2012 16:05 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 F368721F8479; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 z+jS7tQmyScn; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:29 -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 D7D1021F846B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1TdNf0-0007vf-3h; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:22 +0000
Received: from zoo-dhcp16.zoo.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.26.221]) by smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1TdNez-0007gI-9E; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:22 +0000
Message-ID: <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:51:04 +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> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B3F3A4.2060002@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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:31 -0000

Peter,

To be clear about this, are you saying that the apparent requirement in RFC6120 
to use namespace jabber:server or jabber:client for "message", "presence" or 
"iq" stanzas no longer applies?  If I were implementing XMPP based on what I 
read here, I would think that these namespaces *are* required, which suggests a 
problem with the XMPP spec.

(I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be urn: URIs I 
ignored them for this discussion.)

#g
--

On 26/11/2012 22:56, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/26/12 3:45 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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?
>
> RFC 4395 says:
>
>     In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
>     was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
>     common use or the use is not recommended.
>
> I definitely think that 'jabber:' is not recommended. Various XML
> namespaces with the 'jabber:' "scheme" are still in wide use, but we
> have not minted any such namespaces since 1999 or 2000.
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually there are more namespaces than just those two (we minted
> about twenty of them in the early days of XMPP before we realized the
> error of our ways). A full list can be found at
> http://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html -- but we haven't minted any
> new ones in a long time and we're not about to start doing so again.
>
> 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/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlCz86QACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw3MQCg6UjFltp87J9ZfDbVD6/++S4i
> yqEAoKbjXUHPvAvVatJh8B9p4n1VB4lW
> =Imzk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>