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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 28 November 2012 19:41 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 ECD3221F880C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, 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 7ArFaPhh0oTw; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D0521F8909; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45B9840062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:46:05 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B668D5.5000409@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:41:09 -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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F75EE78@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [xmpp] 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 19:41:10 -0000

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

[ removing apps-discuss ]

Actually that list of minted namespaces is incomplete. Here is what I
consider to be a complete list (note that some of these were rarely
used, some are no longer in use, some have been obsoleted, etc.):

      - jabber:client
      - jabber:component:accept
      - jabber:component:connect
      - jabber:component:exec
      - jabber:iq:agent
      - jabber:iq:agents
      - jabber:iq:auth
      - jabber:iq:autoupdate
      - jabber:iq:browse
      - jabber:iq:conference
      - jabber:iq:gateway
      - jabber:iq:groupchat
      - 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:time
      - jabber:iq:version
      - jabber:server
      - jabber:x:autoupdate
      - jabber:x:conference
      - jabber:x:data
      - jabber:x:delay
      - jabber:x:encrypted
      - jabber:x:envelope
      - jabber:x:event
      - jabber:x:expire
      - jabber:x:oob
      - jabber:x:roster
      - jabber:x:signed

On 11/28/12 11:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Something like this seems reasonable:
> 
> URI scheme name. jabber Status. permanent URI scheme syntax. 
> jabberuri = "jabber" ":" 1*(ALPHA) [ ":" 1*(ALPHA) ] URI scheme
> semantics. Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were
> used as XML namespaces during development of the technology that
> became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).  The
> scheme was never used for any other purpose.  The only namespace
> names minted with this scheme were: - 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 No other strings were minted, and no
> other strings shall be minted. Encoding considerations. Encoded as
> 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
> 
> On 11/28/12 11:06 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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: 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC2aNUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzqfwCbBnpyz+knu+LZ+z30myXmsH1P
y+cAn0DhCbwHSkJfJaVx3NhxlCjBpgip
=LSGj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----