Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 23 Feb 2015, at 16:53, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

> Here is proposed text:
>
> ###
>
> 8.  Guidelines for Protocols that Use POSH
>
>  Protocols that use POSH will need to register well-known URIs wth the
>  IANA in accordance with [RFC5785] (the IANA registration policy
>  [RFC5226] for well-known URIs is Specification Required).
>
>  For the sake of consistency, it would be best if the URIs registered
>  by such protocols match the URI template [RFC6570] path "/.well-known
>  /posh.{servicedesc}.json"; that is, begin with "posh." and end with
>  ".json" (indicating a media type of application/json [RFC7159]).
>
>  For POSH-using protocols that rely on DNS SRV records [RFC2782], it
>  would be best if the "{servicedesc}" part of the well-known URI is
>  "{service}.{proto}", where the "{service}" is the DNS SRV "Service"
>  prepended by the underscore character "_" and the "{proto}" is the
>  DNS SRV "Proto" also prepended by the underscore character "_".  As
>  an example, the well-known URI for XMPP server-to-server connections
>  would be "posh._xmpp-server._tcp.json" since XMPP [RFC6120] registers
>  a service name of "xmpp-server" and uses TCP as the underlying
>  transport protocol.
>
>  For other POSH-using protocols, the "{servicedesc}" part of the well-
>  known URI can be any unique string or identifier for the protocol,
>  which might be a service name registered with the IANA in accordance
>  with [RFC6335] or which might be an unregistered name.  As an
>  example, the well-known URI for a hypothetical "SPICE" application
>  could be "posh.spice.json".
>
> ###

That works for me. I would also not complain if the “it would be 
best” lines were replaced with SHOULDs [1], but I’m also okay like 
it is.

[1] based on the 2119 usage of normative text to avoid harm, even if 
it’s not needed for interoperability, said harm being the pollution of 
the well-known URI registry with “craziness.”