Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I have no objections to working on a more general approach. Probably
Yup. I wasn't criticizing the idea, either. It's just a question of who is trying to satisfy an immediate requirement.
that would mean two different header fields: one to encapsulate an "im:" URI and the other to encapsulate a "pres:" URI. I'd be happy to work on
My own guess is that as soon as any real generalization effort is pursued in this topic, we wind up affixing vcards. And that's probably a good thing.
Jabber is to XMPP as email is to SMTP+POP+IMAP.
Well, I appreciate the effort, but no. IM is to XMPP as email is to SMTP et al.
In the end it doesn't really matter what the name of the header field
Alas, yes. Those fields are referenced by humans, which is after all why they tend to have human symbolic meaning. Specs which create confusing nomenclature and labels are harder to debug and deploy.
is, does it? I mean we could call it the "Crocker" field if we really
Or you could call it Lemonade. Oh. Right. That's been taken.
wanted to, as long as the spec describing it clearly defined its meaning. I happened to call it the "Jabber-ID" field because the term "Jabber" has much greater mindshare than the term "XMPP" and eventually
That's why I would have preferred calling the IETF spec Jabber or a derivative. But I'm not trying to revisit the decision, merely suggest that it be handled consistently.
one would hope that a header field of this kind will be used by real people, not IETF protocol geeks or XMPP developers. This point about mindshare is true even within the IETF: at WG meetings, you will hear the chair ask for "a Jabber scribe" but I have never heard one ask for "an XMPP scribe" (or to be even more precise -- since XMPP-based
Then let's in fact rename the protocol. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf