IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11

Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Tue, 25 March 2014 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 4B05D1A01DD for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 yOwV9cgxmZpg for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B976B1A00BE for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2047; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395777518; x=1396987118; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+HqTlFHC8FJc8KqzLXrZKv6eDA1qZGjPYNkJSN3rqJQ=; b=gZQgQB0MKM/vMFOFa9XYnhQ4w/ZwFtoOwoatB2TLp/gEvbWaP1oKEkZ8 Nb4iNkAzg7IH1V95a/bm6+j7nBw0iGHvrpJYWxiU8ae7oRFqCxxmdz6D4 p6DC/qZMFCh6aEMn0pFMZYTowZhQ0ikFRsoiZcqHr85I2eJKmhv44LDZX 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQJAK/eMVOtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgwY7V6lXBJkRgR0WdIImAQEEeBELIRYPCQMCAQIBRQYNBgIBAYd1z3UXjjs6hDgBA4kaOI57kjKDTYIM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,730,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="309778381"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2014 19:58:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2PJwbem009468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:58:37 GMT
Received: from MAMILLE2-M-T03K.local (64.101.72.44) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (173.37.183.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:58:37 -0500
Message-ID: <5331DFEC.4030900@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:58:36 -0600
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
References: <68FA58CE-C00A-4281-8B7E-5C96A0B3B835@nostrum.com> <35972936-21C6-4F35-92EF-4435C3F85C63@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <35972936-21C6-4F35-92EF-4435C3F85C63@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [64.101.72.44]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/ZBYzoGHvdVYDHtwOAAMnx2Jclco
Subject: Re: [xmpp] WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11
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: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:58:40 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I've finished reviewing draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11.  I mostly think
this document is ready to be published.  I think it deals with the
internationalization issues at hand as well as can be expected.

However, in 3.2. Domainpart, I wonder about the following:

  4.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied to the domainpart,
       such as those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] or [RFC5895].

As far as I can tell, just about all of the suggested mappings from
RFC5895 are already required here.  But for any that are not, I worry
about the potential for interoperability problems if say two servers
communicating with each other apply different mappings.  It might be
best to strike this bullet from the list.

Less concerning to me is in 3.3. Localpart:

   2.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied, such as those
       defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].

I think there is less concern about interoperability problems here,
but I wonder if it is of any real utility.

The similar language in 3.4. Resourcepart is not concerning to me at
all; there are some cases where additional mappings are desirable
(e.g., MUC nicknames), and I think the language makes it clear that
anything beyond "it's opaque" is to be approached with care.


Thoughts?

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMd/sAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO12V4IAIShHIc39J0+4TcruXwFGuNi
bKV+ZrJnsTD7MYmv7uA/xorVdcjUofBJGaonpH6Fiev6ZYhgai34IuzrgtpPx6XF
VtYjNOuV+2eyMT6HTuI7lilC6CtzaG2L/063GlvBL31ttSxjtbK9yb647aPyrTPc
qGFEB3PHGjuZC/zcgyUkEj6N1X0Mc+1KpjGiBd6Kl6X6X4mh9blvfLlX2ryPPQvd
IMD+VWb6W3fQ/gI6AN7wuUo0zQArJwjIoSDBv82ZR60WIbQyQ1EZY7PRVV5ZiDD8
ErvCB1S1whthYoVdJdqa/GZPduiZtTKsyuz66v4Ecgj0dV8ypK9cWIgv/fO6hEI=
=lrlV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email