From tobias.peciva@kaseya.com Sun Oct 9 17:26:27 2011 Return-Path: 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 9FA3021F8B3D for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmU6tqew+Lye for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys010aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E243D21F8B30 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob111.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:26:26 PDT Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so5719894yxk.12 for ; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.236.13 with SMTP id j13mr4580729ybh.82.1318206368641; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ws-tpeciva-02.kaseya.com ([121.98.114.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 18sm47216495any.21.2011.10.09.17.26.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tobias Peciva Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:26:02 +1300 Message-Id: <548A6C44-43F3-4107-B50E-9B6E8E2FD41D@kaseya.com> To: xmpp@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [xmpp] Stream Negotiation Clarification X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:28:45 -0000 Hi, I have a question about the "stream-negotiation-complete" conformance = requirement in section 15 of RFC 6120. This requirement states - as does = section 4.3.5 - that stream negotiation is only complete after the = receiving entity sends an empty stream features element, or one with = only optional features. In the client-to-server examples in section 9.1, however, no such = element is sent. I would expect this to happen between 9.1.3 and 9.1.4, = but it appears the entities immediately start exchanging stanzas, = without completing stream negotiation explicitly. Our experience with third party applications is that the behavior = matches section 9.1 rather than sections 4.3.5 and 15: Clients appear to = start sending messages immediately after successful resource binding, = without waiting for an empty features element. Are we interpreting the "stream-negotiation-complete" requirement wrong? Thanks! Best regards, Tobias Peciva Kaseya= From zash@zash.se Sun Oct 9 17:45:28 2011 Return-Path: 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 6079021F84AF for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6TzSf+MlQcIF for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.zash.se (zash-2-pt.tunnel.tserv24.sto1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:27:58d::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB8221F84AC for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:27:68f::2] (zash-3-pt.tunnel.tserv24.sto1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:27:68f::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.zash.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BAB01B29A for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:45:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Kim Alvefur To: xmpp@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <548A6C44-43F3-4107-B50E-9B6E8E2FD41D@kaseya.com> References: <548A6C44-43F3-4107-B50E-9B6E8E2FD41D@kaseya.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:45:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1318207525.3408.92.camel@carcharodon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] Stream Negotiation Clarification X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:45:28 -0000 Hello! On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 13:26 +1300, Tobias Peciva wrote: > I have a question about the "stream-negotiation-complete" conformance > requirement in section 15 of RFC 6120. This requirement states - as > does section 4.3.5 - that stream negotiation is only complete after > the receiving entity sends an empty stream features element, or one > with only optional features. Section 4.3.5 has an informational note stating that resource binding is an exception. -- Kim Alvefur From tobias.peciva@kaseya.com Mon Oct 10 18:12:32 2011 Return-Path: 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 3476C21F8CAD for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYm2awlbnbKP for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys010aog106.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog106.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F349F21F8CAB for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob106.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:31 PDT Received: by mail-qw0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i31so5992126qaf.26 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.196.201 with SMTP id eh9mr12963143qab.39.1318295526120; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ws-tpeciva-02.kaseya.com ([121.98.114.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id du5sm25276621qab.14.2011.10.10.18.12.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Tobias Peciva In-Reply-To: <1318207525.3408.92.camel@carcharodon> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:12:00 +1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <548A6C44-43F3-4107-B50E-9B6E8E2FD41D@kaseya.com> <1318207525.3408.92.camel@carcharodon> To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [xmpp] Stream Negotiation Clarification X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:12:32 -0000 Hey, Right. What doesn't seem clear from the specification is what happens = when there are additional, optional features to negotiate. Presumably = these cannot be negotiated after resource binding, as it appears = entities are allowed to start exchanging messages immediately after the = resource binding completes. So if optional features must be negotiated before resource binding, then = presumably these optional features must be advertised at the same time = (in the same element) as resource binding? And if so, under = what conditions would the receiving entity ever send an empty or = "optional-features-only" element, as mentioned in the = stream-negotiation-complete requirement? It cannot send this after the = resource binding is complete, as message stanzas are already flowing at = this point - and it cannot send it before resource binding, because at = this stage resource binding is still a required feature. I suppose what we're really looking for is an example in the = specification the shows how optional stream features are handled, and = how they are sequenced relative to resource binding. Thanks! Best regards, Tobias Peciva Kaseya On 10/10/2011, at 1:45 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote: > Hello! >=20 > On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 13:26 +1300, Tobias Peciva wrote: >> I have a question about the "stream-negotiation-complete" conformance >> requirement in section 15 of RFC 6120. This requirement states - as >> does section 4.3.5 - that stream negotiation is only complete after >> the receiving entity sends an empty stream features element, or one >> with only optional features. >=20 > Section 4.3.5 has an informational note stating that resource binding = is > an exception. >=20 > --=20 > Kim Alvefur From ben@nostrum.com Thu Oct 20 15:22:04 2011 Return-Path: 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 0B3711F0C48 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7D+kWmo5omIb for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8677B1F0C45 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.19] (cpe-76-187-75-59.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.75.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9KMM1hF076385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:22:03 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:22:00 -0500 Message-Id: To: XMPP Group Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.75.59 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:22:04 -0000 Hi all, PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly = draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now = draft-ietf-precis-framework). XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for = internationalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that = in mind, Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which = depends heavily on the PRECIS framework draft. Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as a = work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that = acceptance does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or = complete. It merely means that we think that the draft is a good start = towards the milestone. Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, = October 27. Thanks! Ben.= From mamille2@cisco.com Thu Oct 20 15:22:56 2011 Return-Path: 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 3CF6711E8085 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CiWvRTmcwTd for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAF51F0C58 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:22:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mamille2@cisco.com; l=4566; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319149375; x=1320358975; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=bL7HySH0prk3Qeya4DbUt8zhhdM16F3S4Sypf4hM4FY=; b=M7GLHN/lEdGOTj+3nqE4q2bQHUVgV9t0VxzSot0j5r5ze+v6ZmEsn0u2 jUoddD60QLCex7IdIWI54dXTsniXkTBahTx4MJ6eK5vkJMHtgMsc5Jhhs MOtD1XnoVS5WgmQ6hXt4BcXzoVR/xQmxMcsSdGQdJ2C2Sw6F1afNvj7eW w=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAPedoE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCpleCQ4EFgW4BAQEDAQEBAQ8BWwsFCwtGAiUwBhMbB4deCJdOAZ4kBIdIYQSIA4t9kXY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,381,1315180800"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="9224367" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2011 22:22:53 +0000 Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-216.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-216.cisco.com [64.101.72.216]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9KMMrds029860; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:22:53 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-6--607713116; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Matt Miller In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:23:06 -0600 Message-Id: References: To: Ben Campbell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: XMPP Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:22:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail-6--607713116 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +1 on adoption. On Oct 20, 2011, at 16:22, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly = draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now = draft-ietf-precis-framework). >=20 > XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for = internationalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that = in mind, Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which = depends heavily on the PRECIS framework draft. >=20 > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as = a work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that = acceptance does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or = complete. It merely means that we think that the draft is a good start = towards the milestone. >=20 > Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, = October 27. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp - m&m Matt Miller - Collaboration Software Group - Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail-6--607713116 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFNTCCBTEw ggMZoAMCAQICAwmYMjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMDEyMTQxNzQ3MTlaFw0x MjEyMTMxNzQ3MTlaMDwxFzAVBgNVBAMTDk1hdHRoZXcgTWlsbGVyMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJt YW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC7Sh5cQYtd /kfoG3KjXd8i2esxt+BtHCmuiSku2VECC6msLKzA08cGJ31GfyX7+996TV3D5omh51j5fznfFikk cVGsuKe+omo70Aidw48ISGygQk8ZJrU8JVVfTjKVJRX39wgj8w8CI/BCz4kXLirIBWKTv1ARuqsO 7I1aqT7pWHAwlAKIbYYEwfz46OjyzmqknglOecy/1PR09nXwAAIepSo0Jk9edqsU8Pdqsbx8cPUV jlFtVkk+58ORjefl+4BoGrzW24rGG2B04sNPrycNqZEaJLmdk5J9ie/FMV10H8wFW8syomuacPxv NhoUgNnkYsJiO7zJEKUUmbmW1GPFAgMBAAGjgf4wgfswDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADBWBglghkgBhvhC AQ0ESRZHVG8gZ2V0IHlvdXIgb3duIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGZvciBGUkVFIGhlYWQgb3ZlciB0byBo dHRwOi8vd3d3LkNBY2VydC5vcmcwQAYDVR0lBDkwNwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBgorBgEE AYI3CgMEBgorBgEEAYI3CgMDBglghkgBhvhCBAEwMgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEJjAkMCIGCCsGAQUFBzAB hhZodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jYWNlcnQub3JnMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNpc2NvLmNvbTAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEAoa/WVlTWG/rbVIFlG1tCdJrbVvIWNfUNSgojunKsoaVGCoIh7T1+ SgWe8sV+r7s5bVlq66iGxTm/qoKMHM9i4aNGlwWDkXqLHoCKbY4qKPGKnn7PaoA6DWQ5u7ZKBkn9 N2fY8iLxiAy/hLnjtRLlbSr2yBX0DbO1K0ORLDwfO2MUf1j2Cou+qVvEmyEe7cUq37iOOsNbtghT xjn+RE7WJiHcR9deAkfI1xXi7UZcFME+k6nhdnX/qWFFLox0fJJCzX1H8DTzRIjA+ciNLWSG+TRx s7fAn+YZisJdkGxMcWlHZxSu+ybPjc9T7zCyf4+yFHigdOMNxiQ2k/E9WTJ84xIis2TG3E9Nba9B PMb6cgjiqGxiFpKKHj9/5A3wDIHZ8dof+M7YFGnHzwF9i72ZEoaO3hMEhAg9LhqGtQtEZohbTZL2 FOeT+8VjUHSOKhEYurQjWrHDj+ZyDjzhOE/KMwqSWokZhoy0s+VQ05BrVlbXd5DJaB/Hem0MdDUc /6IjqtI6f8O/HLQFAVUQgtW50bfCjDOAB/SaEKzygblcAHxSKDbduRQaRst6cIHEy4eQxvxrHIhg b2KWZ00jS+7NUnAMOyzIJTcZfV5mkCb8UjMHq9NSChwpBFuDzpXxjU20xJGDvbVWNDwfbITCczph p4uuhLITzvhHKaUNwxoqx0oxggMzMIIDLwIBATCBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYD VQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRo b3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDCZgyMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCg ggGHMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMTAyMDIyMjMw N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFKV9uPTCq64fIcWaVYEiSFAmc00aMIGRBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgYMw gYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIw IAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0 QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjCBkwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYOggYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBD QTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25p bmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQACpVx1Tklu9wDpCTzSJsEo+HIQMAUDlX+wWcuigblvHRBkhgTASEB6IBjs 0D+yTsC43upnd+JnUrQRmICo43F1SkdMTEF6NQQCln2KaESYUZb5xU3TF/YLiutudHIp3ZRvPXTL B3JJ2WrVa/FpePpCaOnhKgIC0EcsZR2rTz7YbBDUw+EwjdJUnTvmPO8QVIZqsWWbjCviUrVK6SB4 62kRj0RpZfQSh85CdH1xenWgnpwX/x79mI9sfLSi52rvbM1cXQBpmweJm1ZoN10CNqRQu7IKOevN nsBgJ0khZ3I0v6Y1NS2ywrpktVobZtGTMRJpEFqu1AWsZ9cldUj6rlB1AAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-6--607713116-- From ben@nostrum.com Thu Oct 20 15:31:54 2011 Return-Path: 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 A963521F8AEE for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kHME5IYAlAU for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2301021F8AF0 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.19] (cpe-76-187-75-59.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.75.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9KMVqEj077619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:31:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:31:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: XMPP Group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.75.59 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:31:54 -0000 (As individual) For the record, +1 for accepting. On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly = draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now = draft-ietf-precis-framework). >=20 > XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for = internationalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that = in mind, Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which = depends heavily on the PRECIS framework draft. >=20 > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as = a work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that = acceptance does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or = complete. It merely means that we think that the draft is a good start = towards the milestone. >=20 > Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, = October 27. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp From bernard.aboba@gmail.com Thu Oct 20 15:51:47 2011 Return-Path: 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 0455711E8089 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlFU5l5WGsCW for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047CA21F88A0 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so3829058wyh.31 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bvz39RWqkShisUbSVd2OIcomTixxc58NMy3QyK1NUZw=; b=BSnPwC7kUXAQHDw5P8nkIcSuptdmzSjEA+KLHdg8hvh0Xn650aMI/LyS34T48M5mU8 fFZiYIYpYQ/MX0Rp+BLpzbDlkIeEE+DFUOCBGPkOhAAY31/8Bpm10DaS4KjpfKLERKlN rbf/xi0dL5aOxU+yfRzGc9JMSgJpfIg6Ut2O8= Received: by 10.216.137.36 with SMTP id x36mr4750663wei.41.1319151105141; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.17.19 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:51:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6de181e06eab604afc2cdd9 Cc: XMPP Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:51:47 -0000 --0016e6de181e06eab604afc2cdd9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 (As an individual) +1 for accepting. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > (As individual) > > For the record, +1 for accepting. > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly > draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now > draft-ietf-precis-framework). > > > > XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for > internationalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that in > mind, Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which depends > heavily on the PRECIS framework draft. > > > > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as a > work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that acceptance > does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or complete. It > merely means that we think that the draft is a good start towards the > milestone. > > > > Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, > October 27. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Ben. > > _______________________________________________ > > xmpp mailing list > > xmpp@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > --0016e6de181e06eab604afc2cdd9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (As an individual)

+1 for accepting.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
(As individual)

For the record, +1 for accepting.

On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly d= raft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now draft-ietf-pre= cis-framework).
>
> XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for internatio= nalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that in mind,= Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which depends hea= vily on the PRECIS framework draft.
>
> Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as= a work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that acceptan= ce does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or complete. It= merely means that we think that the draft is a good start towards the mile= stone.
>
> Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, Oct= ober 27.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> xmpp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp

_______________________________________________
xmpp mailing list
xmpp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp

--0016e6de181e06eab604afc2cdd9-- From ralphm@ik.nu Fri Oct 21 07:06:27 2011 Return-Path: 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 442D821F8A4E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSkD0NIrIznI for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mag.ik.nu (mag.ik.nu [83.98.201.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D55921F8B50 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mag.ik.nu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mag.ik.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C07A1031 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:06:25 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ik.nu Received: from mag.ik.nu ([127.0.0.1]) by mag.ik.nu (mag.ik.nu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 2IqLJ8xzeLRL for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:06:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.3.102] (s53751670.adsl.wanadoo.nl [83.117.22.112]) by mag.ik.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDB5EA1030 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:06:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1319205984.23697.10.camel@dwaal> From: Ralph Meijer To: xmpp@ietf.org Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:06:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:06:27 -0000 On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 17:22 -0500, Ben Campbell wrote: > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis-02 as a work group item in support of that milestone? +1 on adoption. -- ralphm From jhildebr@cisco.com Mon Oct 24 08:23:19 2011 Return-Path: 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 6806B21F8EA1 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQk4reKTRxrQ for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46ED721F8EA0 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:23:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jhildebr@cisco.com; l=1125; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319469798; x=1320679398; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=lWVAvqJ/psIDVMKLmkyVBfbLNZpBtoKYCXGjJE2t5vg=; b=SLIiNHRjbMP8Hy5raS0aXC0D7CPZGjAiHCHUXna9VQ/lkYdOR/YesmpF ZZVSD+5N6jtzhNbx4iNLZM+lx0W8QSZndZtCCi8jRIWyuawCmDeHQ7MNY LIgi40SCZBmiJ7tdPKKBTr1U2ltGSK2x8wh17ybIUcoSAf36KVXCKFTl2 Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al4FALuBpU6tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABDqRACgQWBbgEBAQECAQEBAQ8BJwIBMRANAQhtMAEBBAESGweHXgiVTAGeBASIQASIBowDhTWMRQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,398,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="30529360" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2011 15:23:17 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9OFNHbg004513; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:23:17 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-314.cisco.com ([72.163.63.29]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:23:17 -0500 Received: from 64.101.72.171 ([64.101.72.171]) by XMB-RCD-314.cisco.com ([72.163.63.29]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:23:17 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:23:15 -0600 From: Joe Hildebrand To: Ben Campbell , XMPP Group Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis Thread-Index: AcySYNl4AhSiRdb5FkKtSg8kc2zArw== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2011 15:23:17.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[DACDD520:01CC9260] Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:23:19 -0000 (as individual) +1 On 10/20/11 4:22 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: > Hi all, > > PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly > draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now > draft-ietf-precis-framework). > > XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for internationalization of > XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that in mind, Peter has been > working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which depends heavily on the PRECIS > framework draft. > > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as a work > group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that acceptance does not > mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or complete. It merely means > that we think that the draft is a good start towards the milestone. > > Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, October 27. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp -- Joe Hildebrand From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 26 16:48:47 2011 Return-Path: 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 900BE1F0C36 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtcTt58QGlDm for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455341F0C34 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1436404FF; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:54:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4EA89C5C.2050103@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:48:44 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Peciva References: <548A6C44-43F3-4107-B50E-9B6E8E2FD41D@kaseya.com> <1318207525.3408.92.camel@carcharodon> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Stream Negotiation Clarification X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:48:47 -0000 On 10/10/11 7:12 PM, Tobias Peciva wrote: > Hey, > > Right. What doesn't seem clear from the specification is what happens > when there are additional, optional features to negotiate. Presumably > these cannot be negotiated after resource binding, I don't think that's true. > as it appears > entities are allowed to start exchanging messages immediately after > the resource binding completes. The server would probably send all of its optional features along with the resource binding feature. > So if optional features must be negotiated before resource binding, > then presumably these optional features must be advertised at the > same time (in the same element) as resource binding? And > if so, under what conditions would the receiving entity ever send an > empty or "optional-features-only" element, as mentioned in > the stream-negotiation-complete requirement? It cannot send this > after the resource binding is complete, as message stanzas are > already flowing at this point Why couldn't the server send the for resource binding, immediately followed by another stream features element? > - and it cannot send it before resource > binding, because at this stage resource binding is still a required > feature. As Kim Alvefur pointed out, Section 4.3.5 notes that resource binding is an exception in this regard. > I suppose what we're really looking for is an example in the > specification the shows how optional stream features are handled, and > how they are sequenced relative to resource binding. Here are some examples of stream features that have been defined outside of the RFCs, in descending order of relevance to your questions: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html#feature http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0138.html#usecase http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0077.html#streamfeature http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html#streamfeature See also: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0170.html Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From ben@nostrum.com Fri Oct 28 13:18:53 2011 Return-Path: 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 63B7811E8080 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.052 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gG3wFamnVt82 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D849511E807F for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9SKIpJR079925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:18:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:18:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: XMPP Group , Peter Saint-Andre X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:18:53 -0000 Hi Everyone, Given that all the feedback has been positive, it looks like we have a = working group consensus to adopt. Peter, please resubmit the draft with a "draft-ietf-xmpp-*" name at your = convenience once the 00 draft embargo is over. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > PRECIS work group recently accepted the framework document (formerly = draft-blanchet-precis-framework-03) as a work group item (now = draft-ietf-precis-framework). >=20 > XMPP has a charter milestone to "Define a solution for = internationalization of XMPP addresses (Update of RFC 6122)". With that = in mind, Peter has been working on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis, which = depends heavily on the PRECIS framework draft. >=20 > Should the XMPP work group accept draft-saintandres-xmpp-6122bis-02 as = a work group item in support of that milestone? Keep in mind that = acceptance does not mean the work group thinks the draft is correct or = complete. It merely means that we think that the draft is a good start = towards the milestone. >=20 > Please send your opinions to the XMPP list no later than Thursday, = October 27. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Oct 28 13:19:42 2011 Return-Path: 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 4E66C11E8089 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:19:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWLOHL4cOVMO for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14E911E807F for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-205.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.205]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA96841FC7; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:25:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4EAB0E5C.6020801@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:19:40 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XMPP Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:19:42 -0000 On 10/28/11 2:18 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Given that all the feedback has been positive, it looks like we have > a working group consensus to adopt. > > Peter, please resubmit the draft with a "draft-ietf-xmpp-*" name at > your convenience once the 00 draft embargo is over. Will do, thanks. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/