IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-22

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Wed, 20 May 2015 22:16 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 561921A0015 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 Kab6xLiozbCk for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) (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 E13201A0122 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdfh10 with SMTP id h10so83968504pdf.3 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qWvOUqB+eYnCzspkgrustqI9AimsuwZWuJYVNf5OMvI=; b=XibROkxex4pz8p9bJ1VDw+S44uZN6Ucn0RBKUnQh/tRrHr/xONDk8FAAzz3xp0V//w p8n9YbSS9GKfATb3l44Iy4QjK//+vnwWH96OaHW+phN3Swe63p9vpme5L56xx1fU7nkk iQ9oCWszPfAHJewwBHmLHPYe8BFlCYPOkMHiw1S8BYgzv1yX6wnPlLeI5D6UKeNk5ro5 7GFXb/Lkxpq3DWhu3M0ioV4Asln6D30hSo0JdBbVq98RrAemEHW7m2wBCjT7NGbuB8NU hwoJQO6q9BYW2eXno+pF7G0D484IGH2rB9wbTrCEJPFsNXKlHwxnRmgfv4ksH6muMUpm Ikxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFqh9ysuoLLm2BxHVkeWpgJ4/zJbzvyTFa/Kqvb035KPn/YPFUvdKtGhlPXVBvPTYSF+iS
X-Received: by 10.68.243.9 with SMTP id wu9mr9243948pbc.28.1432160194574; Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([208.66.31.140]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oj10sm17144907pdb.38.2015.05.20.15.16.32 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <555D07BE.8040104@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:16:30 -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/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
References: <D8B2E121-7136-4075-A2DC-897082E0E5BC@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8B2E121-7136-4075-A2DC-897082E0E5BC@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/aTDvK_5PGO_cusDBgas_TJbC0jU>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-22
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: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:16:36 -0000

On 5/20/15 2:29 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-22. I think this is
> ready for IETF last call, and will start that shortly.

Thanks, Ben.

> I have only one comment of any substance:
>
> -- section 3.1, 4 paragraphs from the end makes normative statements
> about the minimum and maximum length for each part of a JID. But the
> sections for each part repeat those statements, creating redundant
> normative language. I don't see disagreements between the sections, but
> it would still be better to avoid the redundancy.

How about this change to remove the normative statement in §3.1?

OLD
    Each allowable portion of a JID (localpart, domainpart, and
    resourcepart) MUST NOT be zero octets in length and MUST NOT be more
    than 1023 octets in length, resulting in a maximum total size
    (including the '@' and '/' separators) of 3071 octets.

NEW
    Each allowable portion of a JID (localpart, domainpart, and
    resourcepart) is from 1 to 1023 octets in length, resulting in a
    maximum total size (including the '@' and '/' separators) of 3071
    octets.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email