Re: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with DISCUSS)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 10 June 2015 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.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 500C51A883D; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6] autolearn=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 mOQt995znsgQ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BDC1A8831; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E7B88140; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Brians-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D1271B0002; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55788F9B.5080105@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:27:23 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="B5bVk9QJAocC48k02CXMmxkqAIDduL4Pt"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/wsQGFMvmWWt04CJcGR_4DysxpTU>
Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with DISCUSS)
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, 10 Jun 2015 19:27:34 -0000

Hi Peter,

On 6/10/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

>> I agree that a proper reference to 6874 would be useful.  Is there any
>> need to mention the potential for a literal to include the zone id?
> 
> How is this text?
> 
> ###
> 
>       domainpart   = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn
>                      ;
>                      ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are
>                      ; defined in RFC 3896 and RFC 6874 respectively,
>                      ; and the first-match-wins (a.k.a. "greedy")
>                      ; algorithm described in Appendix B of RFC 3986
>                      ; applies to the matching process
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>       Implementation Note: Reuse of the IP-literal rule from [RFC6874]
>       implies that IPv6 addresses are enclosed in square brackets (i.e.,
>       beginning with '[' and ; ending with ']'), which was not the case
>       with the definition of the XMPP address format in [RFC3920] but
>       which was changed in [RFC6122].  Also note that the IP-literal
>       rule was updated between RFC 3986 and RFC 6874 to optionally add a
>       zone identifier to any literal address.
> 
> ###
> 

This all works for me.  Thanks for the quick response and turn around!

Brian