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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 2E74F1ACEF3 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 21:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Lo_I8bxQ_pUZ for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34421ACEF2 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 21:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t4L45Vpg088389 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 May 2015 23:05:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" <peter@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:05:30 -0500
Message-ID: <AF1333D9-C176-4503-8874-33DE142BD68E@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <555D07BE.8040104@andyet.net>
References: <D8B2E121-7136-4075-A2DC-897082E0E5BC@nostrum.com> <555D07BE.8040104@andyet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/wzlFNYCYQbQ3VPZZ3cN_jC5EkW4>
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 04:05:54 -0000

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.

Thanks!

Ben.