Frank Ellermann wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote on the message-headers list: > >> FYI > > Thanks. Frankly, I hate these drafts. Great! Honest feedback is appreciated and agreement is overrated. :) > 1 - why two drafts instead of one ? Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes (as defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779. > 2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ? Presumably people who want to show presence icons next to the names of message authors. > 3 - what about Netnews ? Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted): http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.xml?r1=1337&r2=1339 > 4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ? That is still to be determined. > 5 - jabberid had an interesting IRI example, the new > drafts claim that juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx is an URI. For good or for ill, the pres: and im: URI schemes reuse the "mailbox" construct from RFC 2822. Or something like that -- I asked about it once on the SIMPLE WG list but never received a reply, so the exact meaning is unclear to me: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg07163.html In any case non-US-ASCII characters would need to be handled as is traditional in email systems, as far as I can see. > 6 - I've never seen a pres: URI outside of RFC 3859, > why should I wish to see this in a mail header ? Because it is a more generic solution. > 7 - the jabberid was obviously about xmpp:, what are > im: and pres: about ? Any instant messaging and presence technology, as registered with the IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels http://www.iana.org/assignments/pres-srv-labels Oddly, the only registered technology is XMPP. But other technologies could be registered (and I presume that the lack of a SIP registration is merely an oversight). > 8 - RFC 3859 still uses RFC 2396 syntax on top of a > RFC 2822 <mailbox>. That's known to be wrong if > I recall discussions with Paul and Martin on the > URI list about RFC 2368 (mailto) correctly. I do not recall that discussion. But, as mentioned, I do admit to being confused about the exact syntax of the pres: and im: URI schemes. > 9 - Likewise RFC 3860. I hope you're not trying to > move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields. By no means. I am trying to address feedback received during the Last Call on draft-saintandre-jabberid. Part of that feedback raised the issue of working on a more generic solution that is not tied to a specific instant messaging and presence technology (in this case, XMPP). These I-Ds are my good-faith attempt at fulfilling my promise to work on a more generic solution. > Frank > > Cc: general list, after all jabberid was Last Called. Fair enough, I retain the cc. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf