From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Nov 1 08:02:41 2012 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 11D0521F841B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:02:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Iurx2fvNE1a for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BBE21F8DE7 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.26] (unknown [64.101.72.26]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6482D4011B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:06:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <50928F11.70503@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:02:41 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Working Group References: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Fwd: [precis] spaces at end of nickname 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, 01 Nov 2012 15:02:41 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Feedback appreciated, on or off list. - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [precis] spaces at end of nickname Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:41:55 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: precis@ietf.org In the context of groupchat rooms, most applications show a room roster of the participants. One way to spoof nicknames is to simply add one or more space characters at the end, because the spaces don't show up in the interface (thus "stpeter", "stpeter " with one space at the end, and "stpeter " with two spaces at the end would all appear to be the same person). This seems like an obvious hole that we can plug by disallowing trailing (and perhaps leading) spaces in nicknames. I'll forward this message to the SIMPLE WG and XMPP WG for their feedback, and also raise this issue during the PRECIS WG session next week. Peter _______________________________________________ precis mailing list precis@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCSjxEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyAcwCgvEDgpt0hAuIjRJ0SWNr0FV8N 8PAAn0CFdFIMPgaH28tYzxz1MGydw6WM =57Ke -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From k.i.smith@gmail.com Thu Nov 1 08:08:23 2012 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 DB44C21F8C5E for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7RK0x3RWqIg for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C18021F85E8 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hq12so369288wib.13 for ; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+lhLcsqiFltl07u2MHLYr2sFLczDSSI5KYarTWmomPE=; b=VQVm3VMURs4/N4CMn+89KnKgRLAChl5bCaubkCbZuaVBoo5ItoWJnv1CBWTIy13QWZ dlXSzZ/WSQJwM+Dov1qWeWbFW7ahmbm5hdBDyuJKjqOBvbkYVsAOsLJWPF0SXPMSc97h cvcxz0t8IM9sglirvCjmexNy5fZmnM86G8gD7ud5vk6v82n9uBDnVcI7S1TNyTFOhEU/ ffSu7KBYsO10HboXcXasTQ1tY4vhiYoGBYIixGKeG9Nuz6Lk4XtXl0NT8WQ/hkMze6DY 14cIHbf12PCCuvKnsGQ19DJp/gTdwo91VKOcu5w89LuDvqPareKbc68pe9EwD/pUTH/e ms0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.210.214 with SMTP id u64mr18475810weo.177.1351782467813; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: k.i.smith@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.206.208 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50928F11.70503@stpeter.im> References: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> <50928F11.70503@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:07:47 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VlF8NOY_TBQWg667strcIKveZi0 Message-ID: From: Kevin Smith To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: XMPP Working Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] Fwd: [precis] spaces at end of nickname X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: kevin@kismith.co.uk List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:08:23 -0000 > In the context of groupchat rooms, most applications show a room > roster of the participants. One way to spoof nicknames is to simply > add one or more space characters at the end, because the spaces don't > show up in the interface (thus "stpeter", "stpeter " with one space at > the end, and "stpeter " with two spaces at the end would all appear > to be the same person). This seems like an obvious hole that we can > plug by disallowing trailing (and perhaps leading) spaces in > nicknames. I'll forward this message to the SIMPLE WG and XMPP WG for > their feedback, and also raise this issue during the PRECIS WG session > next week. Disallowing trailing, or leading, whitespace in any sort of identifier seems sensible to me. /K From zash@zash.se Thu Nov 1 08:40:14 2012 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 EA72F21F8E2C for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91rGnHolj7TA for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sphyrna.zash.se (ip66.hethane.riksnet.nu [85.11.25.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A89121F8E2B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.13.40.78] (styx.codemill.se [77.110.18.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: zash) by sphyrna.zash.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A95F3605D2 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:40:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <509297C4.7060002@zash.se> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:39:48 +0100 From: Kim Alvefur User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org References: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> <50928F11.70503@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig615306FEBE420C104CEE2213" Subject: Re: [xmpp] Fwd: [precis] spaces at end of nickname 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, 01 Nov 2012 15:40:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig615306FEBE420C104CEE2213 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-11-01T16:07:47 CET, Kevin Smith wrote: > Disallowing trailing, or leading, whitespace in any sort of identifier > seems sensible to me. +1 Maybe even multiple consecutive spaces within the identifier. Regards, Kim "Zash" Alvefur --------------enig615306FEBE420C104CEE2213 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQkpfZAAoJEK3tmne2etMpD50P/2dpyhyHkP/8gETN3lv2soOm 1+VIJ2PFTLcvSALhaegVzG62nCzXMoRi/yHpdtg+K7/R+DKmzCcLqT0hg5kgtWEh Emdf27ENdGT74PSO/UgXv7c8Zwzu/Wy3hf1hPbCHiv4c9L33WkzzGTPRpPAxvf70 P96bCoqNeQbxAOy4BsHiyvWpjnpQkaO/MRRKTP7tIjowdlYqzR9QIsWKkVyjEgWk cZNbgMx5iarK4SnhCkaP/FNf26KQPhXpwokKTeXdVa3js/9oAjYUsne/upUJAC/B Db644RVcBy2i/TsBKnOT0KEFZAHDjOgpGCYPa4+NOFG/NUwTVDEE+OjTb178aHJA ryEbxHQCg7BmMy59RuG98tFrx1l3kqgsBqrJxT1N+lrBhiOcYo6CmtGBSNg2H4dr jdXNTaRL2gev4f5ccJpuexPfzJntLIBihVMusPf+I6yK7OfI1NHKBI2WXow1Tk4m 6/AqE1rM6aW1uYG6EE0qlGzdcE7WLoynCoAmxr++IEE94Ycwt4KbMEtiz/cznHyd 511ouVoqZ56td99e1daSmedewS4C+xCENloAOqE2S7p7dzBxrdztdHbiraGChH5z 8wnTQQeP0VE9fvMViDLAFcnGYI5hTF+jZs0QOrPxjEl+MoM0RQa26t3QDH6Mmcfw iR/guwkUu+IsUXsfB4Ib =GxpK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig615306FEBE420C104CEE2213-- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Nov 1 09:58:54 2012 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 8E04321F9003 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQGW7Qju0tmd for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDBF21F8938 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.26] (unknown [64.101.72.26]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6792B4011B; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:02:21 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <5092AA4F.3000102@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:58:55 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kim Alvefur References: <50928A33.4090306@stpeter.im> <50928F11.70503@stpeter.im> <509297C4.7060002@zash.se> In-Reply-To: <509297C4.7060002@zash.se> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Fwd: [precis] spaces at end of nickname 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, 01 Nov 2012 16:58:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/1/12 9:39 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: > On 2012-11-01T16:07:47 CET, Kevin Smith wrote: >> Disallowing trailing, or leading, whitespace in any sort of >> identifier seems sensible to me. > > +1 > > Maybe even multiple consecutive spaces within the identifier. This was suggested on the SIMPLE WG list, too. I think it's a good idea. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCSqk8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyphgCgxUoc9bqkAEenKCaqax8M9aJs XTQAoM3fC7OSzjETMuVFG9sLX2VtEGMc =slOW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Nov 1 20:13:32 2012 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 2FE7321F9136 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:13:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDFDFLV24rzP for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EA321F89B2 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BF394011B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:16:52 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <50933A52.3050806@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:13:22 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Working Group References: <5092FB3E.5020002@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <5092FB3E.5020002@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5092FB3E.5020002@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Fwd: Re: [precis] spaces at end of nickname 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, 02 Nov 2012 03:13:32 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI. This would supplement the existing rule about whitespace, which is: 3. Non-ASCII space characters from the "N" category defined under Section 6.14 of [I-D.ietf-precis-framework] MUST be mapped to U+0020 SPACE. Peter - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [precis] spaces at end of nickname Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:44:14 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: precis@ietf.org On 11/1/12 9:28 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote: > On 11/1/12 4:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> On 11/1/12 9:22 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (both leading and trailing whitespaces are already >>> disallowed in usernames). >> +1 >> > +1 OK, I propose adding the following rules to Section 2: 4. Leading and trailing whitespace (i.e., one or more instances of the ASCII space character at the beginning or end of a nickname) MUST be removed. 5. Interior sequences of more than one ASCII space character MUST be mapped to a single ASCII space character. Peter _______________________________________________ precis mailing list precis@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCTOlIACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyrVwCeOOSRyYIpUkJfRFbl033AR/Nj kJ8An1K3d14KRIHLoFexsWiE/x34aY9D =9WNh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From florob@babelmonkeys.de Fri Nov 2 10:25:13 2012 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 C845711E80D2 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:25:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTyIQeqgC3G8 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from babelmonkeys.de (babelmonkeys.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:9341:a2b3::ab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E4611E80C5 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xdsl-213-196-249-94.netcologne.de ([213.196.249.94] helo=[192.168.0.165]) by babelmonkeys.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUKzV-0007HN-H1 for xmpp@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: <509401EF.4020207@babelmonkeys.de> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:25:03 +0100 From: Florian Zeitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org References: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket 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, 02 Nov 2012 17:25:14 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31.10.2012 23:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > At the XMPP Summit last week, we talked a bit about XMPP and the > web, including the I-D that Jack Moffitt has worked on for XMPP > over WebSocket: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket/ > > Jack said he thinks it is ready to move forward, and I agreed to > shepherd it. I then pinged the HYBI WG and XMPP WG chairs, who > appeared to agree that it would be good to discuss the spec on the > XMPP WG list and eventually seek cross-WG review from the HYBI > folks. Does anyone here have feedback on the spec? I know that > several teams have implemented it, so if you want to see it move > forward to RFC then please review it and send comments to the > xmpp@ietf.org list. > > Thanks! > > Peter > Hi, I think this draft is indeed a good starting point, however, based on current implementations I'd like us to re-evaluate the general approach. The current approach is sending normal XMPP over a WebSocket connection. The only thing additionally specified is stanza to message (in the WebSocket sense) mapping. The "problem" with this is that this technology is primarily meant for use with web browsers. Now browsers generally only implement a very limited XML parser. It's neither a streaming parser, nor can you easily inject (default) XML namespaces. This leads to some rather ugly hacks in the implementations I have seen. Opening stream tags are often ignored, or made self-closing using some find-replace magic before puting them through the XML parser. Closing stream tags are handled using string matching for "". Stanzas are generally not in the jabber:client namespace, since no default namespace is set when parsing them. Stream error handling is either non-existant (i.e. fails because the "stream" prefix is not bound), or involves more find-replace magic to manually put the stream namespace declaration in the received character data. Obviously all of this can be (and is to some extend) dealt with in one way or the other, but I'm currently thinking we might be better of using an approach similar to BOSH. By that I don't mean wrapping everything in a , but: a) Having namespace declarations present in each (WebSocket) message (i.e. xmlns="jabber:client" on each stanza, and xmlns:stream="http://etherx.jabber.org/streams" on stream errros) b) Using different signalling for stream (re)start and end (i.e. something that can be parsed as a document on itself). What does everyone else think about this? Regards, Florian Zeitz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCUAe8ACgkQ0JXcdjR+9YSX8wCfcQM7vh/2otQQ9p3Las5JcYss 4x8AnAuxLXOHtJmVZ5Ndn1wyWf7cVAmU =DB1Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From metajack@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 13:23:36 2012 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 719B91F0C80 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:23:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lS7swi986UcO for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407E31F0C7E for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so3125367lbo.31 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p8qxJTM8/cUs8u3DSo3nzYWAQ1p2qrr+PTvfylttN8M=; b=VdWuwi8YwEMiB5KsZnWTaHvirHJHASCR7Jf/q+aKJnCDv91XqwcrVXo9mcBUwQM9hf zmMDLduFlwANLdOjnDIycVaTrS2Xg7svEbye52XVYRqV9C/dX0U+jYLIeWe4BMMKmSe6 HpBp+B+qoX2D7rGStxQGzQjdVrWqjzJOiYtELIPH86ttKyAVg5isMRGKi7sMCloCKzIR F/kr/GpdE6Ovi8HnYp/xoYKJ4OqbmWSYugZby5eNYhMReAeOLttQlzf8LHnr3gjDG329 jXYM7vbLKQ8LFRvG/YVa9JC0KH3AIVJRh663PKpcGvIg9JEBTaVjVgL8LpPVZLUqy0eM sWpQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.104.2 with SMTP id ga2mr1226358lbb.48.1351887814128; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: metajack@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.26.104 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <509401EF.4020207@babelmonkeys.de> References: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> <509401EF.4020207@babelmonkeys.de> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tdnJ4y9kFys4VkD0GSJxNYCVnk0 Message-ID: From: Jack Moffitt To: Florian Zeitz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket 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, 02 Nov 2012 20:23:36 -0000 > The "problem" with this is that this technology is primarily meant for > use with web browsers. Now browsers generally only implement a very > limited XML parser. It's neither a streaming parser, nor can you > easily inject (default) XML namespaces. What we need is the ability to create a DOM object with the correct namespaces (using the attributes from the opening stream tag) and then the ability to handle parsing and dealing with prefixes when we insert nodes into the tree. Currently BOSH gets around this by copying all the stream attributes into a body tag, and then adding the correct namespaces onto body tag's children. There's no issue with parsing the opening an closing tags though. The closing tag is a magic token and the attributes of the opening tag are a regular language which can be unambiguously parsed by regular expressions. But it is work. > a) Having namespace declarations present in each (WebSocket) message > (i.e. xmlns="jabber:client" on each stanza, and > xmlns:stream="http://etherx.jabber.org/streams" on stream errros) In general I think this is a good idea. Servers already do it for BOSH, so I don't think it's a problem to do here. This makes each message parsable with no saved state. > b) Using different signalling for stream (re)start and end (i.e. > something that can be parsed as a document on itself). This I'm less certain of, but it can certainly be done. We could just define a new tag that does what BOSH's does, but only for the open and close tags. Am I right that the goal here is that the websockets payload always be parsable XML on its own (ie, no prefix state or hanging or early terminating tags? As for restarts specifically, is there a reason these exist in BOSH? There is no need for the client to be aware of stream restarts is there? Can we just define them out of the websockets binding and let the endpoint deal with it? jack. From ben@nostrum.com Fri Nov 2 13:34:12 2012 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 9C2CC21F9A59 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:34:12 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AzrTkxaB3x1J for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F4E21F9A58 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.12.11.26] ([4.30.77.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA2KXvEu063579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:34:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:34:11 -0500 References: <20121101121722.29094.73706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: XMPP Group Message-Id: <173FD5C0-49A3-4E55-9FA1-AF422D97CA61@nostrum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 4.30.77.1 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: [xmpp] Fwd: Help the NomCom 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, 02 Nov 2012 20:34:12 -0000 Hi, Please give the NomCom all possible assistance. Thanks! Ben. Begin forwarded message: > From: NomCom Chair >=20 > The IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom) continues to seek input from > the IETF Community. The NomCom would greatly appreciate any help you > could provide in making members of your working group aware of ways in > which they can provide valuable feedback to the NomCom. >=20 > In order to ensure that your input is received in time to be useful, = the=20 > NomCom needs to receive community feedback on or before Sunday, = November 11. >=20 > The final list of candidates (as per RFC 5680) that the NomCom is=20 > considering for open positions can be found at:=20 > https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/input/ >=20 > The NomCom will be holding office hours during IETF 85, Monday- > Thursday from 1:00pm to 3:00pm in Room 305. The NomCom welcomes=20 > comments on specific individuals, as well as general feedback related = to=20 > any of the positions that NomCom is considering. >=20 > Note: A list of leadership positions that the NomCom is considering = can be=20 > found at: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/ >=20 > If the NomCom office hours are inconvenient for you or if you cannot=20= > attend IETF 85, the NomCom is happy to take community input via email=20= > to nomcom12 at ietf.org. Additionally, the NomCom is happy to arrange = a=20 > meeting outside of office hours, just send us email and we can set=20 > something up. >=20 > Comments on specific candidates can also be provided to the NomCom > via the web feedback tool:=20 > https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/input/ >=20 > Thank you for your help, > - Matt Lepinski > nomcom-chair at ietf.org From mamille2@cisco.com Fri Nov 2 13:45:34 2012 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 E650911E80E3 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7+ZkiDT5qU9 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F307C11E80D9 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6035; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351889133; x=1353098733; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4fOZpvtgO9V+jYDeyBDypUoNOS1g1B7vZjXNvsobUEI=; b=F0tIX7YdbkU9McCkp/WUadArfIdDStSqGwHtsIYG+gQfujBZ2xnsbz4g m1oA0ljbmBxd6zTsIxSNQPArm5M35Yd37IL27G83cRqFpP2hy31rnSmDg mggyp8Is/gZOTG2dxwCCUY/ckBgDBNKxvohACt5FU4dWI4SgNr7LArth6 s=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAMQvlFCtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABEw0OBCIIeAQEBAwESAWYQAgEIIiQCMCUCBA4FCAYUh2IGnAOgEIwAFIVGYQOOeYEhhnuKGoMjgWuCb4FbPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,701,1344211200"; d="p7s'?scan'208,217";a="138305848" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2012 20:45:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA2KjWkd016905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:45:32 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.240]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:45:32 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Jack Moffitt Thread-Topic: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket Thread-Index: AQHNt7m8xsoaMeS/30aIqkkPuX7yMJfXIlqAgAAx4QCAAAY2AA== Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:45:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> <509401EF.4020207@babelmonkeys.de> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.62] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19332.000 x-tm-as-result: No--36.578700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1384C90E-CBB1-491D-BF5F-E03559DFBD0C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket 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, 02 Nov 2012 20:45:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1384C90E-CBB1-491D-BF5F-E03559DFBD0C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Jack Moffitt wrote: >> The "problem" with this is that this technology is primarily meant = for >> use with web browsers. Now browsers generally only implement a very >> limited XML parser. It's neither a streaming parser, nor can you >> easily inject (default) XML namespaces. >=20 > What we need is the ability to create a DOM object with the correct > namespaces (using the attributes from the opening stream tag) and then > the ability to handle parsing and dealing with prefixes when we insert > nodes into the tree. >=20 > Currently BOSH gets around this by copying all the stream attributes > into a body tag, and then adding the correct namespaces onto body > tag's children. >=20 > There's no issue with parsing the opening an closing tags though. The > closing tag is a magic token and the attributes of the opening tag are > a regular language which can be unambiguously parsed by regular > expressions. But it is work. >=20 >> a) Having namespace declarations present in each (WebSocket) message >> (i.e. xmlns=3D"jabber:client" on each stanza, and >> xmlns:stream=3D"http://etherx.jabber.org/streams" on stream errros) >=20 > In general I think this is a good idea. Servers already do it for > BOSH, so I don't think it's a problem to do here. This makes each > message parsable with no saved state. >=20 >> b) Using different signalling for stream (re)start and end (i.e. >> something that can be parsed as a document on itself). >=20 > This I'm less certain of, but it can certainly be done. We could just > define a new tag that does what BOSH's does, but only for the > open and close tags. >=20 > Am I right that the goal here is that the websockets payload always be > parsable XML on its own (ie, no prefix state or hanging or early > terminating tags? >=20 > As for restarts specifically, is there a reason these exist in BOSH? > There is no need for the client to be aware of stream restarts is > there? Can we just define them out of the websockets binding and let > the endpoint deal with it? If stream start and stop are not changed for XMPP/WS, then I'd rather = stick closely to RFC 6120 here. I think much of the existing code is = acquiesced to this behavior for other transports anyway. Part of me would like to parse the messages using the same semantics, = and so I would vote in favor of such a change. But I would not consider = this a reason to stop this document's progress. - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_1384C90E-CBB1-491D-BF5F-E03559DFBD0C 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 ggGHMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMTEwMjIwNDU0 OFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFJ70SnLep2OMXsgpFduggLabKSkGMIGRBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgYMw gYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIw IAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0 QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjCBkwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYOggYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBD QTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25p bmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQA/+OG31YTiWKrUOwaQjbhEfzej4g2jTQ0Oqi3wgA9HyN7nG21vvRXtrDrR ZKr5WfLIetM5OXy5ckA5+fG1sBubtyNLCChrJfVG72mUKeR5YVpa/I33id5diWr9zjIaw4g7L4Af omQ8lzE+tawN6YqcU/W2bnFTYGWnex1930Zb8WBfbLOAzS6gYuXZkaslLDLS2YWKD/zJsppZqMoZ Sh/B3sMJzTej4iwcBzDRjQ/WryU8t4jJUB2DaMhLf6q6/Oelzh3Ca1HEE4tSlCbgAXZzHYTrnGZC kLhrhpbMXzPCl+4ZVQdcsTLmS6E7tfPxGIAsDlxxSrVLVwnt6Alb6PdnAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_1384C90E-CBB1-491D-BF5F-E03559DFBD0C-- From mamille2@cisco.com Fri Nov 2 13:57:42 2012 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 0F24D11E80DE for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7pIh6WO1TkgK for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34A411E80D2 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:57:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5195; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351889861; x=1353099461; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=8jC+JSJqyRap1ZRpzDlk1YbCVBnJr9BjaqoRESmJhyQ=; b=N2RjLt5807XQkqok7qCXn5DgjgL9Q6VF9vkLzH8OeRdfzvmeDU/XwwUn kcMB+wrxlzMWKLt7dwDpTa2lhAXwU53NZbCFTdJ/3/K8pf/Uigaev5Es9 wpE6DbmJwmQUsdoDlwWiNaWZnKTvv6898aH5m8IYSMFZkjZQ9p4woEZb+ A=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2214 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAAQzlFCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEw0SBCIIfAQEEEgEUUhACAQgiJAIwFBECBAENBQgGFIdoC5tvoAwEjACFWmEDjnmBIZQ4gWuCb4IZ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,701,1344211200"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="138313506" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2012 20:57:40 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA2KveAn024762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:57:40 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.240]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:57:40 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Peter Saint-Andre , Jack Moffitt Thread-Topic: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket Thread-Index: AQHNt7m8xsoaMeS/30aIqkkPuX7yMJfXXdUA Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:57:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.62] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19332.000 x-tm-as-result: No--35.047300-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91C0A260-1220-4AB0-A00D-4C90C2090F68"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: XMPP Working Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket 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, 02 Nov 2012 20:57:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_91C0A260-1220-4AB0-A00D-4C90C2090F68 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 31, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Peter Saint-Andre = wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > At the XMPP Summit last week, we talked a bit about XMPP and the web, > including the I-D that Jack Moffitt has worked on for XMPP over = WebSocket: >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket/ >=20 > Jack said he thinks it is ready to move forward, and I agreed to > shepherd it. I then pinged the HYBI WG and XMPP WG chairs, who > appeared to agree that it would be good to discuss the spec on the > XMPP WG list and eventually seek cross-WG review from the HYBI folks. > Does anyone here have feedback on the spec? I know that several teams > have implemented it, so if you want to see it move forward to RFC then > please review it and send comments to the xmpp@ietf.org list. >=20 NITS: * Section 4 (Examples) needs to be filled out * Section 5 (IANA Considerations) needs to be filled out OTHER: * Stream Setup, restart and closing I've stated my position in another reply * Application-level Redirects One thing I have noticed that I think needs to be addressed, possibly = here: application-level redirects. RFC 6120 defines the stream error condition for this, = as a new host/ip and port; however, I don't think this error condition = is expressive enough for XMPP over WebSockets ("ws" --> "wss", or a = change in path). BOSH defines the "see-other-uri" for this; but relies = on semantics specific to BOSH and not readily applied outside of it. It's a gap that I think needs to be filled before this draft can = progress much further. - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_91C0A260-1220-4AB0-A00D-4C90C2090F68 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 ggGHMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMTEwMjIwNTc1 N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFBYd9bE0S9CO/MhEq8fqIT9xeeJOMIGRBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgYMw gYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIw IAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0 QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjCBkwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYOggYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBD QTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25p bmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwmYMjANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCoBg4T/yV74SGf5SEp67HiFw31ZypfGEuRmtL3PmwrV2h0uElNcUxzI3Rh hNh0JobyyeoiG9pH8jqBusYD9d5LEh51b0jDq1v0kSgje7aL8+P/CmN0NRfpCVCzZUJJrDTQwqdy eE238kmSk+OuubmZKgxolnQ82d3fywXq99XTaWtZYZvTjAvjKIOgMVkhyU6wJGrItfkq2VlFgxaq 9vfrMSNVZOkODymG6U6R99W6b//wZJ12A8uEOrzq7LcohR6r0biAv/guSCJN8lcjLhnlkzvCdY8R jBZifKQx3azTDLrx4hjl87dmGbDMNiri//Aw6s6dbsvTKPCgZCxklZJOAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail=_91C0A260-1220-4AB0-A00D-4C90C2090F68-- From florob@babelmonkeys.de Sat Nov 3 05:26:21 2012 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 B22B621F9C37 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 05:26:21 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qSDcoXFRCJSm for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from babelmonkeys.de (babelmonkeys.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:9341:a2b3::ab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E789E21F98D7 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xdsl-81-173-224-69.netcologne.de ([81.173.224.69] helo=[192.168.0.165]) by babelmonkeys.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUcno-0000qO-Gu; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:26:16 +0100 Message-ID: <50950D62.1030706@babelmonkeys.de> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:26:10 +0100 From: Florian Zeitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Moffitt References: <5091AA81.6040806@stpeter.im> <509401EF.4020207@babelmonkeys.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] XMPP over WebSocket 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: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:26:21 -0000 On 02.11.2012 21:23, Jack Moffitt wrote: >> The "problem" with this is that this technology is primarily meant for >> use with web browsers. Now browsers generally only implement a very >> limited XML parser. It's neither a streaming parser, nor can you >> easily inject (default) XML namespaces. > > What we need is the ability to create a DOM object with the correct > namespaces (using the attributes from the opening stream tag) and then > the ability to handle parsing and dealing with prefixes when we insert > nodes into the tree. > > Currently BOSH gets around this by copying all the stream attributes > into a body tag, and then adding the correct namespaces onto body > tag's children. > > There's no issue with parsing the opening an closing tags though. The > closing tag is a magic token and the attributes of the opening tag are > a regular language which can be unambiguously parsed by regular > expressions. But it is work. > Very true. FWIW the opening stream tag is only regular if you assume the namespace prefix is fixed to "stream", but that's a fair assumption for XMPP. Unfortunately it appears most people rather do s/// in order to be able to use a DOM parser. E.g. WXG (XMPP websocket proxy) even sends (and worse expects) a self-closing opening stream tag. I'm of course not saying we should change the draft to accommodate broken implementations, but the fact that this appears to be common place (to me anyway) might be an indication that we need to do something™. >> a) Having namespace declarations present in each (WebSocket) message >> (i.e. xmlns="jabber:client" on each stanza, and >> xmlns:stream="http://etherx.jabber.org/streams" on stream errros) > > In general I think this is a good idea. Servers already do it for > BOSH, so I don't think it's a problem to do here. This makes each > message parsable with no saved state. > >> b) Using different signalling for stream (re)start and end (i.e. >> something that can be parsed as a document on itself). > > This I'm less certain of, but it can certainly be done. We could just > define a new tag that does what BOSH's does, but only for the > open and close tags. > > Am I right that the goal here is that the websockets payload always be > parsable XML on its own (ie, no prefix state or hanging or early > terminating tags? > Yes, that is the intention. Or put differently, I'd like to get rid of magic tokens and regular languages that were originally normal XML. > As for restarts specifically, is there a reason these exist in BOSH? > There is no need for the client to be aware of stream restarts is > there? Can we just define them out of the websockets binding and let > the endpoint deal with it? > I think if we are honest no variant of XMPP technically still needs, or ever needed stream restarts. I'd however be reluctant to deviate from RFC 6120 on this. I have a hunch it would only make servers and client implementations not confined to websockets more complicated and error prone. Regards, Florian From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Nov 6 21:10:34 2012 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 6554011E80AD; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5jraYb-QcVu; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB1B11E8097; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:10:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.35 Message-ID: <20121107051033.15559.79580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:10:33 -0800 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-05.txt 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, 07 Nov 2012 05:10:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protoco= l Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Addre= ss Format Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-05.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-11-06 Abstract: This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From jhildebr@cisco.com Mon Nov 26 12:27:56 2012 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 3601621F860A; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Ob1EFvxkkG0; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496E521F8619; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:27:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2315; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1353961675; x=1355171275; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=E6PfVRxviFiI6fWicdnVSF0aa+hKDF3AVZr5OkLLA1U=; b=A3zXshaWaSbjUn2PQ6wEhDIWhTIXRVf5P7wI7bql9NIcXE/Pm7y0tSEx 5Kd13iIdWTtzFoxzwRCO08lENrWVc+9BE6NxFelcZFsb+GbMy9w0K3V/7 fpICsxVj3kNsdaa20KbWIQGVNodeJOjL0OyY0mosuyzqqVPewCYk9oMSa s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAI3Qs1CtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEwCQWc4IeAQEBBAEBATc0CxIBCBgKFDcLJQIEAQ0FCAGIBAzAW5AXYQOXHY8ogm+CHQ X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="143350997" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2012 20:27:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAQKRrPJ003283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.236]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:27:53 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Peter Saint-Andre , Julian Reschke , "xmpp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? Thread-Index: AQHNzBSCfRYVe/3F6Uu1oZkj94/60w== Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:52 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <50B3B9EC.6010007@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 26 Nov 2012 20:27:56 -0000 Looping the XMPP wg list. If we register it, let's make sure that registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE". On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: >On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they >>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client" >>>> and "jabber:server" (cf. >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2). >>>> >>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication >>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace >>>> prefix). >>> >>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd >>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML >>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme, >>> just a mistake. :) >>> >>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm >>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:. >>>> >>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that >>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but >>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered? >>> >>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think >>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:' >>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs. >>> ... >>=20 >> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the >> documentation explain what's going on. >>=20 >> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we >> have documented that in >> . > >Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix >was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces... > >Peter > >--=20 >Peter Saint-Andre >https://stpeter.im/ > > >_______________________________________________ >apps-discuss mailing list >apps-discuss@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > --=20 Joe Hildebrand From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Nov 26 12:30:01 2012 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 5FFA721F8651; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:01 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZ4yksbn12JM; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF67221F863B; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD4DB40092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:34:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:58 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 26 Nov 2012 20:30:01 -0000 Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4 On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > Looping the XMPP wg list. If we register it, let's make sure that > registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE". > > On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > >> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they >>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client" >>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf. >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2). >>>>> >>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication >>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace >>>>> prefix). >>>> >>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd >>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML >>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme, >>>> just a mistake. :) >>>> >>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm >>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that >>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but >>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered? >>>> >>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think >>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:' >>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs. >>>> ... >>> >>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the >>> documentation explain what's going on. >>> >>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we >>> have documented that in >>> . >> >> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix >> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces... >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> Peter Saint-Andre >> https://stpeter.im/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> apps-discuss mailing list >> apps-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Nov 26 14:56:39 2012 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 87D2221F8447; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXlxVDYq7OXg; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867EB21F878A; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0C4340092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:01:28 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:56:36 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 26 Nov 2012 22:56:39 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/26/12 3:45 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical. > > Is this strictly true? After all, doesn't XMPP still require use > of jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP > streams? RFC 4395 says: In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in common use or the use is not recommended. I definitely think that 'jabber:' is not recommended. Various XML namespaces with the 'jabber:' "scheme" are still in wide use, but we have not minted any such namespaces since 1999 or 2000. > My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back > later: [[ Definition of XML Stanza: An XML stanza is the basic > unit of meaning in XMPP. A stanza is a first-level element (at > depth=1 of the stream) whose element name is "message", "presence", > or "iq" and whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or > 'jabber:server'. ]] -- > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1 > > In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very > limited URI scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and > jabber:client) for use in XMPP streams. No other URIs or uses for > this scheme are sanctioned. Actually there are more namespaces than just those two (we minted about twenty of them in the early days of XMPP before we realized the error of our ways). A full list can be found at http://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html -- but we haven't minted any new ones in a long time and we're not about to start doing so again. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCz86QACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw3MQCg6UjFltp87J9ZfDbVD6/++S4i yqEAoKbjXUHPvAvVatJh8B9p4n1VB4lW =Imzk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From GK@ninebynine.org Mon Nov 26 14:48:40 2012 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 8D7AF21F8548; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EegiHdPCYsML; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729C521F8542; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Td7Tf-00049F-5E; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:35 +0000 Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Td7Tf-0005Ko-0d; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:45:24 +0000 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:33:01 -0800 Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 26 Nov 2012 22:48:40 -0000 On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical. Is this strictly true? After all, doesn't XMPP still require use of jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP streams? My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back later: [[ Definition of XML Stanza: An XML stanza is the basic unit of meaning in XMPP. A stanza is a first-level element (at depth=1 of the stream) whose element name is "message", "presence", or "iq" and whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server'. ]] -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1 In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very limited URI scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and jabber:client) for use in XMPP streams. No other URIs or uses for this scheme are sanctioned. #g -- > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4 > > On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> Looping the XMPP wg list. If we register it, let's make sure that >> registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE". >> >> On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >>>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they >>>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client" >>>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf. >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2). >>>>>> >>>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication >>>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace >>>>>> prefix). >>>>> >>>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd >>>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML >>>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme, >>>>> just a mistake. :) >>>>> >>>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm >>>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that >>>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but >>>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered? >>>>> >>>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think >>>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:' >>>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs. >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the >>>> documentation explain what's going on. >>>> >>>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we >>>> have documented that in >>>> . >>> >>> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix >>> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces... >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Saint-Andre >>> https://stpeter.im/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> apps-discuss mailing list >>> apps-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Nov 27 08:12:44 2012 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 308F221F85FF; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpun8rJeTNE5; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A6021F8562; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B44C640092; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:17:36 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B4E67A.80502@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:12:42 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 16:12:44 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/27/12 8:51 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Peter, > > To be clear about this, are you saying that the apparent > requirement in RFC6120 to use namespace jabber:server or > jabber:client for "message", "presence" or "iq" stanzas no longer > applies? If I were implementing XMPP based on what I read here, I > would think that these namespaces *are* required, which suggests a > problem with the XMPP spec. Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 (and RFC 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). > (I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be > urn: URIs I ignored them for this discussion.) Other old namespaces currently in use are jabber:iq:last, jabber:x:conference, jabber:iq:private, jabber:iq:version, jabber:iq:register, jabber:iq:rpc, jabber:iq:oob, jabber:component:accept, jabber:component:connect, jabber:iq:privacy, and jabber:x:data. After we deprecated the jabber:* form and before we started using URN-based namespaces (see RFC 4854), we also used HTTP URIs at the jabber.org domain. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC05noACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwl6wCeP7BmC00OhDOk+GjSCH4a4j+w DrsAoNNhzKk3GYYZH+pXovEUqxbSz94u =dbH4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jhildebr@cisco.com Tue Nov 27 09:04:26 2012 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 CDAD221F851F; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hp4533JtP2KM; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1596221F846B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:04:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=949; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354035866; x=1355245466; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GcosaTb200+aHMcRMxh+d2wOtno8JZEBZW99OF5Vky4=; b=giQt5P8VteGJMqO1SQRUmqyrPoxxldgIRu+XnrTguwh25YrycyVdtqqH TVXyyg81P6On/yLuAf6MdKBpenz4C19layQ94RpeayOCqeJPUZbp10Qb1 gMG2jnkqnwxAaNvgzSxCn/SX3UgSDXQrq6qrTuLrgM09AjTQg8IY2Dcrn o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0FAHvxtFCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABFhWK6PIEJgh4BAQEDATo/EgEIDhQUQiUCBAENBQiHfwawRpBLkBphA6ZFgnCCIA X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="146745122" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2012 17:04:25 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qARH4P2v004539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:25 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.236]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:04:25 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Graham Klyne , Peter Saint-Andre Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? Thread-Index: AQHNzLkD4QLcs/TdaESDPBgLU8DDkJf+PzEAgAAGLoD//5LogA== Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:24 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <50B4EBA9.8030700@ninebynine.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:26 -0000 On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" wrote: >> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 (and RFC >> 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). > >OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I think the text >from RFC=20 >4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of these jabber: URIs is >still=20 >required (and others as you note below). > >I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI scheme, maybe >list=20 >the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a note that no more jabber: URIs >should=20 >be minted. (as individual) As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or similar, I don't really care what status the doc has. Let's not bog down. (as XMPP co-chair) This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will probably stick. --=20 Joe Hildebrand From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Nov 27 09:05:54 2012 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 0E7F121F846A; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oMnWJ1jgNBmI; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D040721F85EF; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C7BA40092; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:10:46 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:05:52 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 17:05:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/27/12 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" wrote: > >>> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 >>> (and RFC 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). >> >> OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I think the >> text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of >> these jabber: URIs is still required (and others as you note >> below). >> >> I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI >> scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a >> note that no more jabber: URIs should be minted. > > (as individual) > > As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or similar, I > don't really care what status the doc has. Let's not bog down. > > (as XMPP co-chair) > > This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write > an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will > probably stick. I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will find time to bang that out before the end of the year. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC08vAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOcQCeJ8C2wtz74nbUX3N8/K4rl1y6 XVQAoK/MHyRz8Sfx4FmHag/xGHcw7tdh =lR0y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Tue Nov 27 09:45:37 2012 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 0F08021F85CE; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b3BWW9RwdLed; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FBC21F8574; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so10589870lbk.31 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cm88pxTI4MDHe1V4ytp8PzmalPUpCOmUJXHTBPBqr8A=; b=YDHJBBFQtLMu9mCeU67aiogvf8t+Siy8C+kNBy6iyB8HJOYkDmXuaGmIdI5jvQcOQD vsTgMGrb10loqJwpIB0HjG96yQrPa+enLkysVi/LU7m0w2VnNddxqhMC/K5zGJ50/rkJ W6kSBW2wl/jbTyLM3SyNA1dxhxksKdO++g5iEEx2Dzbok/2t7ZtJtAGdBWBKyk7XSphE XNpQjTdVpogGx/iJUDa7Xw31tpo65k1eeG4Nhlu5OfPC2ccpy5Co2icrJPSgQwMeSmZn SNBf1pslVi5iM5N5xS0lROY98db9myU8uuhELvuLyaokCgqoOjrH1ml1AGGTQZbSJ80G L3vg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.108.197 with SMTP id hm5mr15459860lab.45.1354038334474; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.12.166 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:45:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:45:34 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QrYshb6ZGVa-CBY3r4wZ2ECblxM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , Julian Reschke , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "uri-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 17:45:37 -0000 >> This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write >> an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will >> probably stick. > > I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will find > time to bang that out before the end of the year. Independent Stream, even.... Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 10:57:00 2012 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 9D04221F86A3; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k59-wq24dWNe; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3E021F867A; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7736E40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:01:56 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:57:01 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 28 Nov 2012 18:57:00 -0000 Something like this seems reasonable: URI scheme name. jabber Status. permanent URI scheme syntax. jabberuri = "jabber" ":" 1*(ALPHA) [ ":" 1*(ALPHA) ] URI scheme semantics. Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were used as XML namespaces during development of the technology that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used for any other purpose. The only namespace names minted with this scheme were: - jabber:client - jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:last - jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:encrypted - jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:signed No other strings were minted, and no other strings shall be minted. Encoding considerations. Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Interoperability considerations. The 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120. Contact. Peter Saint-Andre Author/Change controller. XMPP WG References. RFC 6120 On 11/28/12 11:06 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Peter, all, > > I don't think it even needs to be a draft. XMPP spec already exists, so > we should just be able to submit the registration template to IANA. > > I was thinking I'd try and draft something and run it by you (but don't > hold your breath). > > #g > -- > > On 27/11/2012 17:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 11/27/12 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>>> On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 >>>>>> (and RFC 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). >>>>> >>>>> OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I think the >>>>> text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of >>>>> these jabber: URIs is still required (and others as you note >>>>> below). >>>>> >>>>> I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI >>>>> scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a >>>>> note that no more jabber: URIs should be minted. >>>> >>>> (as individual) >>>> >>>> As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or similar, I >>>> don't really care what status the doc has. Let's not bog down. >>>> >>>> (as XMPP co-chair) >>>> >>>> This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write >>>> an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will >>>> probably stick. > > I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will find > time to bang that out before the end of the year. > > Peter From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 11:41:09 2012 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 ECD3221F880C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.213 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ArFaPhh0oTw; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D0521F8909; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45B9840062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:46:05 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B668D5.5000409@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:41:09 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 28 Nov 2012 19:41:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ removing apps-discuss ] Actually that list of minted namespaces is incomplete. Here is what I consider to be a complete list (note that some of these were rarely used, some are no longer in use, some have been obsoleted, etc.): - jabber:client - jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - jabber:component:exec - jabber:iq:agent - jabber:iq:agents - jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:autoupdate - jabber:iq:browse - jabber:iq:conference - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:groupchat - jabber:iq:last - jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:time - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - jabber:x:autoupdate - jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:delay - jabber:x:encrypted - jabber:x:envelope - jabber:x:event - jabber:x:expire - jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:roster - jabber:x:signed On 11/28/12 11:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Something like this seems reasonable: > > URI scheme name. jabber Status. permanent URI scheme syntax. > jabberuri = "jabber" ":" 1*(ALPHA) [ ":" 1*(ALPHA) ] URI scheme > semantics. Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were > used as XML namespaces during development of the technology that > became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The > scheme was never used for any other purpose. The only namespace > names minted with this scheme were: - jabber:client - > jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - > jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:last - > jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - > jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - > jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - > jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:encrypted - > jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:signed No other strings were minted, and no > other strings shall be minted. Encoding considerations. Encoded as > UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. Applications/protocols that use > this URI scheme name. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol > (XMPP). Interoperability considerations. The 'jabber' scheme must > not be used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; > the 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. > Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120. Contact. Peter > Saint-Andre Author/Change controller. XMPP WG > References. RFC 6120 > > On 11/28/12 11:06 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Peter, all, >> >> I don't think it even needs to be a draft. XMPP spec already >> exists, so we should just be able to submit the registration >> template to IANA. >> >> I was thinking I'd try and draft something and run it by you (but >> don't hold your breath). >> >> #g -- >> >> On 27/11/2012 17:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/27/12 10:04 >> AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>>>> On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by >>>>>>> RFC 6120 (and RFC 6121 requires support for >>>>>>> jabber:iq:roster). >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I >>>>>> think the text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not >>>>>> apply, since use of these jabber: URIs is still required >>>>>> (and others as you note below). >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the appropriate course would be to register the >>>>>> URI scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, >>>>>> and add a note that no more jabber: URIs should be >>>>>> minted. >>>>> >>>>> (as individual) >>>>> >>>>> As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or >>>>> similar, I don't really care what status the doc has. >>>>> Let's not bog down. >>>>> >>>>> (as XMPP co-chair) >>>>> >>>>> This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants >>>>> to write an individual draft first should just pick a >>>>> status, and that will probably stick. >> >> I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will >> find time to bang that out before the end of the year. >> >> Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2aNUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzqfwCbBnpyz+knu+LZ+z30myXmsH1P y+cAn0DhCbwHSkJfJaVx3NhxlCjBpgip =LSGj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 14:10:02 2012 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 E1F6C21F8946; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cQc7BvFCcuGl; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B5621F846A; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92AFF40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:14:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:10:02 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Masinter References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "julian.reschke@gmx.de" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "uri-review@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 28 Nov 2012 22:10:03 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Heh, I like that. :) On 11/28/12 3:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > How about avoiding giving BNF which you then prohibit using? Just > list them: > > > URI scheme name jabber > > Status: Permanent > > URI scheme syntax: One of the following: - jabber:client - > jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - > jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:last - > jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - > jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - > jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - > jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:encrypted - > jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:signed > > URI scheme semantics. These URIs were used as XML namespaces > during development of the technology that became the Extensible > Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used > (and should not be used) for any other purpose; no other "jabber:" > URIs shall be minted. > > Encoding considerations. ASCII (UTF-8) within XMPP protocol > streams. > > Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. > > Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). > > > Interoperability considerations. The 'jabber' scheme must not be > used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the > 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. > > > Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120. > > > Contact. Peter Saint-Andre > > > Author/Change controller. XMPP WG References. RFC > 6120 > > - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2i7oACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyrhACfXsQdOCqgKe/xPnYixtz+nSwW IrYAoIqCXBBpu9ymY87NvZRkwo3Oo22D =FJhu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 18:51:12 2012 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 E49E021F89A7; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:51:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.057 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkJO8ei3IHu7; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0B421F8823; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36B4B40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:56:09 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:19:17 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Masinter References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 02:51:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 So here is the registration... ### URI scheme name. jabber Status. permanent URI scheme syntax. The only allowable strings are: - jabber:client - jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - jabber:component:exec - jabber:iq:agent - jabber:iq:agents - jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:autoupdate - jabber:iq:browse - jabber:iq:conference - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:groupchat - jabber:iq:last - jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:time - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - jabber:x:autoupdate - jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:delay - jabber:x:encrypted - jabber:x:envelope - jabber:x:event - jabber:x:expire - jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:roster - jabber:x:signed URI scheme semantics. Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were used as XML namespace names during development of the technology that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used for any other purpose. The only namespace names minted with this scheme are listed above. No other strings were minted, and no other strings shall be minted. Note that defining new URI schemes for XML namespaces is now discouraged. The 'jabber' scheme was defined before standard best practices emerged. Encoding considerations. Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Interoperability considerations. The 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120. Contact. Peter Saint-Andre Author/Change controller. XMPP WG References. RFC 6120 ### Feedback is welcome. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2m/UACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyA2ACgkKPJN21QgVYrmN8Sk6ZShLpz 6BgAnAkyDYhv2/sbi4fcn3R2h/FmbZvj =abXm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From derhoermi@gmx.net Wed Nov 28 19:28:34 2012 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 5E0F51F0C8B for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:28:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bji4XTnOBkxA for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D14BF1F0C8A for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2012 03:28:31 -0000 Received: from p5B232CD0.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO netb.fritz.box) [91.35.44.208] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2012 04:28:31 +0100 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18atkd6Cn0aKkoi4zLUSeeL2GczK4tq8YyjqmrSpe EfcXz+6xvmXC+L From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Peter Saint-Andre Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:28:29 +0100 Message-ID: References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 03:28:34 -0000 * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >So here is the registration... > >### > > URI scheme name. > jabber > > Status. > permanent > > URI scheme syntax. > The only allowable strings are: > - jabber:client >[...] I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids speculation whether "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are actually prohibited by this and whether it is okay for individual schemes to specify such constraints. Simply saying, for example, these strings are used as XML namespace names and the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 20:10:48 2012 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 90EED21F89AB; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TE6j0D4SrK9a; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AEA21F89A7; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F14540062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:15:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:10:49 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjoern Hoehrmann References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 04:10:48 -0000 On 11/28/12 8:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> So here is the registration... >> >> ### >> >> URI scheme name. >> jabber >> >> Status. >> permanent >> >> URI scheme syntax. >> The only allowable strings are: >> - jabber:client >> [...] > > I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids speculation whether > "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are actually prohibited by this and > whether it is okay for individual schemes to specify such constraints. > Simply saying, for example, these strings are used as XML namespace > names and the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do. I thought that was clear from the section on semantics: Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were used as XML namespace names during development of the technology that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used for any other purpose. The only namespace names minted with this scheme are listed above. No other strings were minted, and no other strings shall be minted. Note that defining new URI schemes for XML namespaces is now discouraged. The 'jabber' scheme was defined before standard best practices emerged. Do you think we need to make this clear also under syntax? For instance we could add a sentence like the following at the end of the syntax section: These strings are used literally as shown, with the specified case (e.g., "jabber" not "JABBER") and no possibility of percent-encoding (e.g., the string "jabber:%63lient" is not allowed and is not equivalent to or transformed into the string "jabber:client"). We could also perhaps make the semantics section even clearer, such as: Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were minted for use as XML namespace names during development of the technology that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Note well that defining new URI schemes for XML namespaces is now discouraged, and that the 'jabber' scheme was (inadvertently) created before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces. The 'jabber' scheme was never used for any purpose other than XML namespace names, and is not designed or intended for any other use. In particular, the 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. The only namespace names minted with this scheme are listed in the syntax definition section of this registration. No other names were minted, and new names shall not be minted (i.e., the scheme is closed to generation of new URIs). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 20:21:15 2012 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 6C9D721F89B7; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:21:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eTvQqIYjsxJp; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AEB21F89B6; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D399740062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:26:12 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B6E2BD.9030101@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:21:17 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E130.4030003@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <50B6E130.4030003@it.aoyama.ac.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 04:21:15 -0000 On 11/28/12 9:14 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > Hello Peter, > > On 2012/11/29 8:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > So here is the registration... > > ### > > URI scheme name. > jabber > > Status. > permanent > > URI scheme syntax. > The only allowable strings are: > - jabber:client >> .. > URI scheme semantics. > Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were > used as XML namespace names during development of the > technology that became the Extensible Messaging and > Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used > for any other purpose. The only namespace names > minted with this scheme are listed above. No other > strings were minted, and no other strings shall be > minted. Note that defining new URI schemes for XML > namespaces is now discouraged. The 'jabber' scheme > was defined before standard best practices emerged. > > Encoding considerations. > Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. > >> This is irrelevant. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.6. > >> I would write this as following: > >> Encoding considerations. >> None. All characters are within the characters allowed in URIs. You are right. How about the following... Encoding considerations. None. Because the limited number of URIs (XML namespace names) minted with this scheme contain characters only from the ASCII range, encoding of internationalized code points is out of scope. In addition, these namespace names do not contain any text fields that would be subject to specialized encoding. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From derhoermi@gmx.net Wed Nov 28 20:37:40 2012 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 A6D1421F8762 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:37:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvIhQpWXpKLA for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 73E7821F88D8 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2012 04:37:35 -0000 Received: from p5B232CD0.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO netb.fritz.box) [91.35.44.208] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2012 05:37:35 +0100 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX195QZgb+i55HaA3edY5LwkMWMR1Y6oeP4qr4oz3zf tWoK+hUePmjHvH From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Peter Saint-Andre Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:37:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 04:37:40 -0000 * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >On 11/28/12 8:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> URI scheme syntax. >>> The only allowable strings are: >>> - jabber:client >>> [...] >> >> I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids speculation whether >> "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are actually prohibited by this and >> whether it is okay for individual schemes to specify such constraints. >> Simply saying, for example, these strings are used as XML namespace >> names and the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do. > >I thought that was clear from the section on semantics: The problem are the conformance requirements implied by "allowable". If you develop a URI Validator and add support for the 'jabber' scheme, it is not clear whether strings like "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient", or even "jabber:client#" should be rejected. These strings are not on the list of "allowable" strings, so some will argue they ought to be re- jected, while others will argue per RFC 3986 they ought to be accepted. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Nov 28 20:51:34 2012 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 91B6A1F0C80; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxuK9Yy3LnDk; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD69B1F0C59; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D93AF40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:56:31 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B6E9D8.5090109@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:51:36 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjoern Hoehrmann References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 04:51:34 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/12 9:37 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 11/28/12 8:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> URI scheme syntax. The only allowable strings are: - >>>> jabber:client [...] >>> >>> I would prefer if this used some wording that avoids >>> speculation whether "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient" are >>> actually prohibited by this and whether it is okay for >>> individual schemes to specify such constraints. Simply saying, >>> for example, these strings are used as XML namespace names and >>> the scheme should not be used for other purposes would do. >> >> I thought that was clear from the section on semantics: > > The problem are the conformance requirements implied by > "allowable". If you develop a URI Validator and add support for the > 'jabber' scheme, it is not clear whether strings like > "JABBER:client" or "jabber:%63lient", or even "jabber:client#" > should be rejected. These strings are not on the list of > "allowable" strings, so some will argue they ought to be re- > jected, while others will argue per RFC 3986 they ought to be > accepted. They ought to be rejected. Please understand that these namespace names are sent only as the value of 'xmlns' in XMPP streams. They are not in general use anywhere else. XMPP software implementations know what to do with them (and I really doubt that they pass these strings to URI parsers anyway). This is basically a whitelist of known strings and they are not treated as URIs anywhere in the XMPP ecosystem. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC26dgACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx73QCg8IPhO/puyypHDL41ZZ1Z3XlQ prgAnjhEfcEOk204/l3yVi5ABbEJkECh =7RQd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From GK@ninebynine.org Tue Nov 27 08:05:31 2012 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 F368721F8479; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z+jS7tQmyScn; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D1021F846B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1TdNf0-0007vf-3h; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:22 +0000 Received: from zoo-dhcp16.zoo.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.26.221]) by smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdNez-0007gI-9E; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:22 +0000 Message-ID: <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:51:04 +0000 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:11 -0800 Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:31 -0000 Peter, To be clear about this, are you saying that the apparent requirement in RFC6120 to use namespace jabber:server or jabber:client for "message", "presence" or "iq" stanzas no longer applies? If I were implementing XMPP based on what I read here, I would think that these namespaces *are* required, which suggests a problem with the XMPP spec. (I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be urn: URIs I ignored them for this discussion.) #g -- On 26/11/2012 22:56, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/26/12 3:45 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical. >> >> Is this strictly true? After all, doesn't XMPP still require use >> of jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP >> streams? > > RFC 4395 says: > > In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that > was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in > common use or the use is not recommended. > > I definitely think that 'jabber:' is not recommended. Various XML > namespaces with the 'jabber:' "scheme" are still in wide use, but we > have not minted any such namespaces since 1999 or 2000. > >> My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back >> later: [[ Definition of XML Stanza: An XML stanza is the basic >> unit of meaning in XMPP. A stanza is a first-level element (at >> depth=1 of the stream) whose element name is "message", "presence", >> or "iq" and whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or >> 'jabber:server'. ]] -- >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1 >> >> In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very >> limited URI scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and >> jabber:client) for use in XMPP streams. No other URIs or uses for >> this scheme are sanctioned. > > Actually there are more namespaces than just those two (we minted > about twenty of them in the early days of XMPP before we realized the > error of our ways). A full list can be found at > http://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html -- but we haven't minted any > new ones in a long time and we're not about to start doing so again. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlCz86QACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw3MQCg6UjFltp87J9ZfDbVD6/++S4i > yqEAoKbjXUHPvAvVatJh8B9p4n1VB4lW > =Imzk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From GK@ninebynine.org Tue Nov 27 08:36:07 2012 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 DD98621F8534; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZeBAszvXwG3; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay0.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay0.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B8D21F842C; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1TdO8g-0006SQ-28; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:36:02 +0000 Received: from zoo-dhcp16.zoo.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.26.221]) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdO8g-0001uz-1F; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:36:02 +0000 Message-ID: <50B4EBA9.8030700@ninebynine.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:34:49 +0000 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B3D146.3080506@stpeter.im> <50B3F104.6010305@ninebynine.org> <50B3F3A4.2060002@stpeter.im> <50B4E168.5010300@ninebynine.org> <50B4E67A.80502@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B4E67A.80502@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:11 -0800 Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 27 Nov 2012 16:36:08 -0000 On 27/11/2012 16:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/27/12 8:51 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Peter, >> >> To be clear about this, are you saying that the apparent >> requirement in RFC6120 to use namespace jabber:server or >> jabber:client for "message", "presence" or "iq" stanzas no longer >> applies? If I were implementing XMPP based on what I read here, I >> would think that these namespaces *are* required, which suggests a >> problem with the XMPP spec. > > Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 (and RFC > 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I think the text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of these jabber: URIs is still required (and others as you note below). I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a note that no more jabber: URIs should be minted. #g -- >> (I noticed the other namespaces, but since they all seemed to be >> urn: URIs I ignored them for this discussion.) > > Other old namespaces currently in use are jabber:iq:last, > jabber:x:conference, jabber:iq:private, jabber:iq:version, > jabber:iq:register, jabber:iq:rpc, jabber:iq:oob, > jabber:component:accept, jabber:component:connect, jabber:iq:privacy, > and jabber:x:data. From GK@ninebynine.org Wed Nov 28 10:28:38 2012 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 548C621F8415; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Swe4wHWciRcW; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED6821F84DC; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:28:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay9.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1TdmN6-00074E-U5; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:32 +0000 Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdmN6-0005dq-0K; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:32 +0000 Message-ID: <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:06:31 +0000 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:11 -0800 Cc: Julian Reschke , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:38 -0000 Peter, all, I don't think it even needs to be a draft. XMPP spec already exists, so we should just be able to submit the registration template to IANA. I was thinking I'd try and draft something and run it by you (but don't hold your breath). #g -- On 27/11/2012 17:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/27/12 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> On 11/27/12 9:34 AM, "Graham Klyne" wrote: >> >>>> Yes, jabber:client and jabber:server are required by RFC 6120 >>>> (and RFC 6121 requires support for jabber:iq:roster). >>> >>> OK, that's what I originally thought. In which case, I think the >>> text from RFC 4395 that you cited does not apply, since use of >>> these jabber: URIs is still required (and others as you note >>> below). >>> >>> I think the appropriate course would be to register the URI >>> scheme, maybe list the URIs in use for this scheme, and add a >>> note that no more jabber: URIs should be minted. >> >> (as individual) >> >> As long as the registry has a policy of "Closed" or similar, I >> don't really care what status the doc has. Let's not bog down. >> >> (as XMPP co-chair) >> >> This isn't on our charter at the moment, so whoever wants to write >> an individual draft first should just pick a status, and that will >> probably stick. > > I think it can be an informational I-D outside any WG, and will find > time to bang that out before the end of the year. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlC08vAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOcQCeJ8C2wtz74nbUX3N8/K4rl1y6 > XVQAoK/MHyRz8Sfx4FmHag/xGHcw7tdh > =lR0y > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From masinter@adobe.com Wed Nov 28 14:05:59 2012 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 7128321F8457; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBpYyE2imZaS; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002B721F894B; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKULaKv4Tf20/hHFF27ko1Moi0azFfC9Y4@postini.com; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:58 PST Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id qASM5nHP007635; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id qASM5mNc011798; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:48 -0800 From: Larry Masinter To: Peter Saint-Andre , Graham Klyne Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:05:45 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? Thread-Index: Ac3Nmik2CTw2bq55Qt6ov8YIw0cz1gAGZC3g Message-ID: References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:11 -0800 Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" , "uri-review@ietf.org" , "xmpp@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 28 Nov 2012 22:05:59 -0000 How about avoiding giving BNF which you then prohibit using? Just list them= : URI scheme name jabber Status: Permanent URI scheme syntax: One of the following: - jabber:client - jabber:component:accept - jabber:component:connect - jabber:iq:auth - jabber:iq:gateway - jabber:iq:last - jabber:iq:oob - jabber:iq:privacy - jabber:iq:private - jabber:iq:register - jabber:iq:roster - jabber:iq:rpc - jabber:iq:search - jabber:iq:version - jabber:server - jabber:x:conference - jabber:x:data - jabber:x:encrypted - jabber:x:oob - jabber:x:signed URI scheme semantics. These URIs were used as XML namespaces during development of the = technology that became the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). = =20 The scheme was never used (and should not be used) for any other purpose; no other "jabber:" URIs shall be minted. Encoding considerations. ASCII (UTF-8) within XMPP protocol streams. Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Interoperability considerations. The 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp' scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such cases. Security considerations. See Section 13 of RFC 6120. Contact. Peter Saint-Andre Author/Change controller. XMPP WG References. RFC 6120 =20 From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Nov 28 20:14:59 2012 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 443B321E80B2 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:14:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdPioRP0w3Bi for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:14:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8871021E803D for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id qAT4Ek0b018591 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:14:47 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 4b76_a17f_4f458254_39db_11e2_a9a7_001d096c5782; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:14:45 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:43639) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:14:47 +0900 Message-ID: <50B6E130.4030003@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:14:40 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:08 -0800 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 04:14:59 -0000 Hello Peter, On 2012/11/29 8:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > So here is the registration... > > ### > > URI scheme name. > jabber > > Status. > permanent > > URI scheme syntax. > The only allowable strings are: > - jabber:client .. > URI scheme semantics. > Strings of the form 'jabber:*' and 'jabber:*:*' were > used as XML namespace names during development of the > technology that became the Extensible Messaging and > Presence Protocol (XMPP). The scheme was never used > for any other purpose. The only namespace names > minted with this scheme are listed above. No other > strings were minted, and no other strings shall be > minted. Note that defining new URI schemes for XML > namespaces is now discouraged. The 'jabber' scheme > was defined before standard best practices emerged. > > Encoding considerations. > Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. This is irrelevant. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.6. I would write this as following: Encoding considerations. None. All characters are within the characters allowed in URIs. You may also be able to add the note that Björn suggested here. Regards, Martin. > Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. > Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). > > Interoperability considerations. > The 'jabber' scheme must not be used to identify or > enable interaction with XMPP addresses; the 'xmpp' > scheme defined in RFC 5122 is to be used in such > cases. > > Security considerations. > See Section 13 of RFC 6120. > > Contact. > Peter Saint-Andre > > Author/Change controller. > XMPP WG > > References. > RFC 6120 > > ### > > Feedback is welcome. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlC2m/UACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyA2ACgkKPJN21QgVYrmN8Sk6ZShLpz > 6BgAnAkyDYhv2/sbi4fcn3R2h/FmbZvj > =abXm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Uri-review mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Nov 28 21:08:19 2012 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 83C9021E804D for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:08:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.722 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grmE2BUSp0Sd for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BED21E8039 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id qAT589ni027920 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:08:09 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 4b73_ad5d_c4843e64_39e2_11e2_8bf1_001d096c5782; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:08:09 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:35786) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:08:11 +0900 Message-ID: <50B6EDB3.5000307@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:08:03 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E130.4030003@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <50B6E2BD.9030101@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B6E2BD.9030101@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:59:11 -0800 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Graham Klyne , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 05:08:19 -0000 On 2012/11/29 13:21, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 11/28/12 9:14 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> Hello Peter, >> >> On 2012/11/29 8:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Encoding considerations. >> Encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP protocol streams. >> >>> This is irrelevant. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.6. >> >>> I would write this as following: >> >>> Encoding considerations. >>> None. All characters are within the characters allowed in URIs. > > You are right. How about the following... > > Encoding considerations. > None. Because the limited number of URIs (XML namespace > names) minted with this scheme contain characters only > from the ASCII range, encoding of internationalized code > points is out of scope. In addition, these namespace names > do not contain any text fields that would be subject to > specialized encoding. Ship it. Regards, Martin. From GK@ninebynine.org Thu Nov 29 07:01:58 2012 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 0670F21F8233; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:01:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9OhhLWB4703H; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552FD21F8231; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Te5ce-00056t-5R; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:01:52 +0000 Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Te5ce-000076-1X; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:01:52 +0000 Message-ID: <50B770B8.1030400@ninebynine.org> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:27:04 +0000 From: Graham Klyne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> <50B6E9D8.5090109@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <50B6E9D8.5090109@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Oxford-Username: zool0635 Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Bjoern Hoehrmann , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 15:01:58 -0000 On 29/11/2012 04:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Please understand that these namespace names are sent only as the > value of 'xmlns' in XMPP streams. They are not in general use anywhere > else. That point may be worth making; e.g. [[ Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). These URIs are used only as namespace names within XMPP sreams, and are not intended for use in any other situations. ]] While it's possible to discuss finer points, I think that your draft performs the main required function; i.e. it provides essential information about the scheme. Had this existed in the IANA registry, my original question would not have arisen. (FWIW, I thought it was easier to just say "encoded as UTF-8 within XMPP streams" than to explain why that's not relevant or out-of-scope.) So, as Martin says, just "ship it" (with or without the above point). #g -- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Nov 29 12:44:02 2012 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 E33EA21F8C45; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:44:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.324 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o4Ap2dXcUHnp; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:44:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0CD21F8C42; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:44:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5B7340092; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:49:01 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <50B7C915.3040708@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:44:05 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Klyne References: <50B4F2F0.3050406@stpeter.im> <50B652A7.2030502@ninebynine.org> <50B65E7D.9050005@stpeter.im> <50B68BBA.1000302@stpeter.im> <50B69BF5.2040808@stpeter.im> <50B6E049.9050401@stpeter.im> <50B6E9D8.5090109@stpeter.im> <50B770B8.1030400@ninebynine.org> In-Reply-To: <50B770B8.1030400@ninebynine.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" , Bjoern Hoehrmann , "xmpp@ietf.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered? 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, 29 Nov 2012 20:44:03 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/29/12 7:27 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 29/11/2012 04:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Please understand that these namespace names are sent only as >> the value of 'xmlns' in XMPP streams. They are not in general use >> anywhere else. > > That point may be worth making; e.g. > > [[ Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name. Extensible > Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). These URIs are used only as > namespace names within XMPP sreams, and are not intended for use in > any other situations. ]] > > While it's possible to discuss finer points, I think that your > draft performs the main required function; i.e. it provides > essential information about the scheme. Had this existed in the > IANA registry, my original question would not have arisen. > > (FWIW, I thought it was easier to just say "encoded as UTF-8 within > XMPP streams" than to explain why that's not relevant or > out-of-scope.) > > So, as Martin says, just "ship it" (with or without the above > point). Done (with the above point). Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC3yRUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzm9wCgwyg637xhNiCW3RMB9/zvnVVa HvQAn1iP4bGAWPNWC/x6Aoj3RmDIwonc =z4hr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----