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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 27/11/2012 16:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/27/12 8:51 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.

#g
--

>> (I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be
>> urn: URIs I ignored them for this discussion.)
>
> Other old namespaces currently in use are jabber:iq:last,
> jabber:x:conference, jabber:iq:private, jabber:iq:version,
> jabber:iq:register, jabber:iq:rpc, jabber:iq:oob,
> jabber:component:accept, jabber:component:connect, jabber:iq:privacy,
> and jabber:x:data.