Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5769)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 30 June 2019 22:23 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5A01201D1 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 cab0DF9gOjy1 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) (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 870A51201CD for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id m24so24425819ioo.2 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bQKCmwl1wExMOzYyrNduEg59ROefQV3IXlP7gDEc/kA=; b=GCUN4+8wd2aClHzjokw1G+BbMb3PRgjkduSuxOZjNaFdyQCq7WS9ZZ+Dq6kBNmybpu rDrzaaTut6MqTyzeh/4BMlg4NXy9Xx092PEB2YAIBkV41UAOBT7ZQfdHSJNPCV43VV7S 0ML9+r6EnIgVdHvCgge87xYAVfRyXflfAJII26/li66H+CJSvWPXiWBY3TxIdAVfeQIJ mpzKc57aEcGYoNzT6jqVyWfggMq5wNoSShPYBDL+fnbcIWMt/5ZOlkDw0BCsOlKj20tV I6prkJesgGqrDubAZF+GS79b2LU/j7dfEZkvjiZ9g5UfvuIuxhhXqftrdizjM5cOaIGr +6dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0DdKhis1Na0lBUbtSJiK4O/oiUTEnOskQ/g9VmUHDZp6cgG+p Uv1AiPRURfZUOJsvfkEtTgoXzzhpPWJ527+YpHU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzlOZVapJuQt0aPxBfFQ6h6sjWoaGkNQTAJ6KpgsDa5qDmxH4KSMWB5V25txNLGgrN3o6qyNjfXP1bBYbav3pA=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:5489:: with SMTP id t131mr24798141jaa.70.1561933426164; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190630214921.40238B81D6A@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190630214921.40238B81D6A@rfc-editor.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:23:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ0t58BgMYE6G9XLFc-ydskvV6CS48d9++8xBfNZ_cLDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, flo@geekplace.eu, xmpp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/qe9XCyNSqt-0oAyQufPh-5fbcRs>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5769)
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 22:23:50 -0000
This report seems basically correct to me, though I'm not sure the suggested fix is the right one, so let's have some discussion first: 1. Is this bit of text intended to say that "domainpart" has to *consist of* NR-LDH labels and U-labels, rather than to contain characters valid for those? Characters valid for those are also valid for R-LDH labels and A-labels as well, so it seems a bit of a confusing way to define it (in particular, "xn--" are all valid characters in U-labels, but my sense is that we do not want labels in XMPP "domainpart" to actually be A-labels... right?). Similarly, do we intend to allow R-LDH labels in XMPP "domainpart"? The characters are valid, so they would be allowed by the cited text. 2. Earlier, in Section 3.8, is this text that seems rather odd to me: If the domainpart includes a final character considered to be a label separator (dot) by [RFC1034] When I look at RFC 1034, I see that there's no mention of label separator at all, and no set of characters that are considered to be so. It simply says: When a user needs to type a domain name, the length of each label is omitted and the labels are separated by dots ("."). Is there a reason for that specific text in Section 3.2, or are we just looking for the 'DNS label separator "dot" (U+002E, FULL STOP)' as suggested in the errata report? My sense is that the intended replacement *might* be this, though I'm not sure and need discussion/confirmation: An entity that prepares a string for inclusion in an XMPP domainpart slot MUST ensure that the string consists only of NR-LDH labels and U-labels, as defined in [RFC5890], separated by the DNS label separator "dot" (U+002E, FULL STOP). Barry On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 5:49 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7622, > "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5769 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Florian Schmaus <flo@geekplace.eu> > > Section: 3.2.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > An entity that prepares a string for inclusion in an XMPP domainpart > slot MUST ensure that the string consists only of Unicode code points > that are allowed in NR-LDH labels or U-labels as defined in > [RFC5890]. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > An entity that prepares a string for inclusion in an XMPP domainpart > slot MUST ensure that the string consists only of Unicode code points > that are allowed in NR-LDH labels or U-labels as defined in > [RFC5890], or the DNS label separator "dot" (U+002E, FULL STOP). > > Notes > ----- > The current specification forbids the inclusion of dots (".") in the domainpart, since they are not allowed in NR-LDH nor U-labels. But they should be allowed, as otherwise a DNS name could never be put into an XMPP domainpart (which is commonly done). > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7622 (draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format > Publication Date : September 2015 > Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol > Area : Applications and Real-Time > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG
- [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5769) RFC Errata System
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Barry Leiba
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Schmaus
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Barry Leiba
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Schmaus
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Dave Cridland
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Barry Leiba
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Matthias Wimmer
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Schmaus
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Zeitz
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Schmaus
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Zeitz
- Re: [xmpp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7622 (5… Florian Schmaus