Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh
Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Mon, 23 February 2015 22:32 UTC
Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3281A039D for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9cDKLlDOZk3 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE731A034C for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hl2so22175404igb.3 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:31:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NnbiagSuB1CpsEuAPMUU9JHIsz0TtOlPztXZdqgJfMs=; b=Nf7oBy2hSKTrBSbDFjtctHKyRLQYsf0GFzLR6ICQiIxg1/k09+gBw0OfJdxVdUXfwj 6xriRJw9T5QOh2hvhZnok2d0VWHYqhZ+V6JBYjuHRenYJvvvqZurvljqrAGGONy5Hg3V vR+GWWMDckOHmOMt5UZL+KbXyb0vASjXbw3TWSq22lu2Y2EzmhgekRVqQALKAHYpQIzB MX5OdOHTgSQQyUDWXyCpPdZa9zmGzcprnF3j7ASsiRecBR47w0Fb+8DfdMkGxlx2beDR nH8nnOkdEzfDPzYQ5gVdxOO36BtKRombHonZ0dSbfYqWRQ9CKnZv29nWqf+rJjQGKjWP NWWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZAQQxCagEdQQnPkK0kWFbLFogBQOLBALlZPvPF5Lkf9SdaSYGhIUwqDEvbVgWih3btnwm
X-Received: by 10.50.66.243 with SMTP id i19mr16266972igt.7.1424730719604; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a9sm3887564ioa.23.2015.02.23.14.31.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EBAA5C.508@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:31:56 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <9A67CFDB-5504-43E0-A63C-82E996A70620@nostrum.com> <54EBA26D.4080000@andyet.net> <5CD6E0B8-CB86-472B-9A3B-9F89274DB2FF@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5CD6E0B8-CB86-472B-9A3B-9F89274DB2FF@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/O8tedGlZXsJ2e-Ed0VxuvBqtvQo>
Cc: draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.all@tools.ietf.org, XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:32:03 -0000
On 2/23/15 3:10 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi Peter, further comments below. I removed sections that do not seem to > need further discussion. > > On 23 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> — Material Comment: IANA Considerations >>> >>> These seems a bit unusual, since we are registering a “fragment” that >>> other protocols will use to register actual URIs. This does not seem to >>> have been contemplated by RFC5785. This also the side effect of >>> establishing rules for certain entries in the well-known URI registry >>> over and above those from RFC5785. >>> >>> Does it make sense to actually register the prefix itself, since it’s >>> not really a URI? It would seem reasonable to leave the actual >>> registration to protocols that need to register posh URIs. >> >> You make a very good point. I think you're right that it makes more >> sense for the POSH spec to provide instructions to protocols that need >> to register POSH URIs - as, for instance, draft-ietf-xmpp-dna does - >> but not to register a URI prefix (instead, just say "please use the >> prefix"). > > So if I understand the implications of this path, it would mean we give > guidance that any protocol that uses posh should register a “posh.*” > URL. Yes but that's really just for a friendly consistency. Matt and I chatted about it over IM and we both recalled that we were trying to prevent crazy registrations in .well-known (this was around the time that Mark Nottingham was starting to work on the evocatively named draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn, now RFC 7320). > (I note that the well-known URI registry uses the specification > required policy. Is that adequate for POSH use?). I think so. Over time we've tried to become more liberal about IANA registrations policies. > But this doc would not > register anything. Correct. > Would that guidance still go in the IANA > considerations section? I suspect the answer is probably not. It would go in another section since we wouldn't be registering anything, nor would we be providing actionable guidance to IANA. > Also, does anything implode if some protocol chooses not to use the POSH > prefix? No imminent implosions to worry about. > Do we actually care? Not much, although as I said it provides a friendly consistency. > I assume we don’t expect developers to try > to guess well-known URIs. That's true. >>> I see Mark Nottingham is the expert for the well-known URI registry. By >>> any chance has anyone run this by him? >> >> I have a vague recollection of having talked with him about it once, >> but I can find no evidence of that in my email folders. If we agree >> that what you suggest is the best approach, then I think it makes >> sense to update the document before reaching out to him (and in fact >> that might not be necessary since this document wouldn't be doing >> anything unusual). > > I agree that if we don’t register anything, and don’t try to change the > well-known URI registration policy for posh purposes, it might not be > necessary to involve Mark. (But for the record, if he were okay with the > way things are currently documented, I would back off on this point.) Well, I think the way things are currently documented is misguided, so we might as well correct it. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/
- [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh ⌘ Matt Miller
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [xmpp] PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh Ben Campbell