IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122?

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@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 9020D1A011E for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 wzRClxfVwM1W for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1142E1A0109 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407530040; x=1408739640; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=HyBJM1mQUu6DDV8MAT3g6H0OUNiCTgA0NyPBZ+VaF5c=; b=N1EN1K5csw4Uau00Eq8MY0JzC0feQeKL1ROwW/KmIIQG3Qqgilnq/OB8 yFTpwpUgLOOUW1DDMFbxyCC4arMGu4L0sAebmcL9ShM2hFXTF7V6z+JFQ fkuMk7LTu4fCykdsvuAQPskVKt46GdxUaDkhPvLt55v1dA0tvhl0MaK5D g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAJEz5VOtJA2M/2dsb2JhbABagw1SVwSCc8lxh1ABGXwWd4QEAQEEIxFFEAIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FiEKwD5V0F4EsjW0zB4J5NoEcAQSRFoQlgimERZR4g1dsgUc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,827,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="346122777"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2014 20:33:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s78KXvbk031431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:33:57 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.102]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:33:57 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [xmpp] Does 6122bis need to update 5122?
Thread-Index: AQHPs0co9A4QIM2xjE6SXLkj8OUMGJvHGNOA
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:33:56 +0000
Message-ID: <86DC3122-80F9-433F-85BA-B3479E8FBC0A@cisco.com>
References: <D001223B.57A8E%jhildebr@cisco.com> <113FD63D-AD0F-4123-996F-659E75DCB494@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <113FD63D-AD0F-4123-996F-659E75DCB494@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/15.3.0.140730
x-originating-ip: [10.21.98.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3EC63FEBFDF9C8479AE0AD3573BDC094@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/qk58F6OC395r3l07LWUF85Y6r-M
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 20:33:59 -0000

I don't think I've seen it on the list.

DMARC problem?

On 8/8/14, 8:27 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email