IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 21 May 2015 05:52 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 7576F1A016C for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:31 -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 L0pKjfu1_gyI for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com [209.85.220.42]) (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 236731A014E for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pabru16 with SMTP id ru16so93556788pab.1 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:28 -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 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iNgcLhpYBgGglSwExrbzuuvGbS20hbMCQDjQozyjvZE=; b=eKj6rc7v35+7FYkxV7wkEAP/0YtzSElTlhOOP+xeo9bKefPzD4MjtnUg5s3/XCf54y LMmTAKHdN5j7fEqXUXhsN3dGYJJ4XFYgx+5Zw1iH9WGeIes2KsvhQ9zb/d2becE/Ttne d4jKNbllAFgw21eedEWsnuiVY2HbmX9WRcD87TE7y7YwImuXTL5Z1Zvqvi20QuFbmnPF H6+TA+o53zugY0nW/ILp+K3Gru6Xrlv3vN7EbaDheN+eV5jeTZxmRcTl4gWfThIaddMK 8+RdDDg9vLc+MlEPkxIZsE5M9vihfEKx8HUmamCLOH/kcFQVXNdqWzW48w6kuxrwhYlu XeRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnt33vTsZ7IuqRlNBzzXrfGbzKbZ/UcEkgUp+2JC6xhupuKY51dBa/5lnxIlMl5/9o8sxYS
X-Received: by 10.70.90.162 with SMTP id bx2mr2294489pdb.60.1432187548583; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([12.249.93.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ca2sm17940028pdb.25.2015.05.20.22.52.26 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <555D729A.7090606@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:52:26 -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>
References: <D8B2E121-7136-4075-A2DC-897082E0E5BC@nostrum.com> <555D07BE.8040104@andyet.net> <AF1333D9-C176-4503-8874-33DE142BD68E@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF1333D9-C176-4503-8874-33DE142BD68E@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/nhSHJ4O8BVxYcb0Kp19qXX6OlxU>
Cc: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 21 May 2015 05:52:31 -0000

On 5/20/15 9:05 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 20 May 2015, at 17:16, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That WFM. I suggest dealing with that when you deal with any IETF last
> call feedback.

Ack. Will do.

Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email