Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122?
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 20:27 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 8319F1A033A for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 9r8uHfK1X_fO for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7D71A0109 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s78KRBOc006758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:27:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D001223B.57A8E%jhildebr@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:27:10 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 429222430.835474-b9d863c7170c9bda4bfdfff854a464c8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <113FD63D-AD0F-4123-996F-659E75DCB494@nostrum.com>
References: <D001223B.57A8E%jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/P6mBH62W7LVadkb4cX0cEGAyn4Y
Cc: "xmpp@ietf.org" <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122?
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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:27:21 -0000
Did Peter's comments go to the list? I did not see the original. One comment below: On Aug 1, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote: > On 8/1/14, 10:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: > >> In that case, we'd specify an XMPP URI (RFC 5122). >> >> Thus I might suggest: >> >> For an XMPP client [RFC6120] using STUN and TURN, the ORIGIN >> attribute is an XMPP URI [RFC5122] representing the domainpart >> of the client's Jabber ID (JID) [RFC6122]; for example, if the >> client's JID is "juliet@im.example.com/balcony" then the ORIGIN >> attribute would be "xmpp:im.example.com". > > This made me wonder if we need to either rev 5122 to point to 6122bis, or > just have 6122 update 5122 (which I think I'd prefer, so we don't open up > a can of IRI worms). If we need to do one or the other, I would also lean towards updating 5122 in 6122bis. Reving 5122 just for this seems like overkill.
- [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122? Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122? Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122? Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122? Peter Saint-Andre