Frank Ellermann wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >>> 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 > > Two schemes with a semantics somewhere between about: and file: ... > if I am interested in pres:juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx, can say Psi help me ? Not unless Psi implements resolution of the pres: URI scheme (i.e., doing the required SRV lookup). As far as I know, Psi does not yet implement that. >>> 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. > > Okay, but Gmail can manage that without a fancy Pres-ID: mail header > field. I also don't quite believe in this separation "feature". Gmail is an integrated service. What if you're using mutt or Thunderbird or some random MUA and you want to show presence information about a message author? >>> 3 - what about Netnews ? >> Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted) > > Thanks. > >>> 4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ? >> That is still to be determined. > > You've now demonstrated your good will wrt im: and pres:, after > that exercise please let's continue with the jabberid. It was > almost perfect, "experimental" status is also okay. Version -06 had an intended status of Informational. I have been convinced that that's most appropriate. >>> 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 > > For ill, they imitate mailto:. But what I meant in (5) was a > syntactical nit, juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx is no URI, you forgot the > scheme, as in im:juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> In any case non-US-ASCII characters would need to be handled >> as is traditional in email systems, as far as I can see. > > "mailto-ter" (my name for a successor of mailto-bis supporting > EAI) is a _very_ hard case. And mailto-bis is also a _very_ > hard case. Don't hold your breath. > > IFF mailto-bis survives a Last Call, and IFF im/pres follow > suite, and IFF 2822bis reduces its NO-WS-CTL horrors, and IFF > EAI reaches "experimental", then might be a good time to look > at im/pres again. > >>> 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. > > Okay, I've to check if Psi has a "be more generic" option :-) Probably not yet. You can always request the feature. :) >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels > > Some SRV magic, does it work wrt xmpp ? Apparently there > is no _xmpp.stpeter.im. "SRV" is still a mystery for me. I don't run an xmpp server at my personal domain, since I use the jabber.org domain for that. But per RFC 3859 you can type 'dig SRV _pres._xmpp.jabber.org' and get some results (since we mainly use these SRV records for server-to-server functionality, the SRV record lists a port of 5269, which is the server-to-server port for xmpp). >>> if I recall discussions with Paul and Martin on the >>> URI list about RFC 2368 (mailto) correctly. >> I do not recall that discussion. > > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/578> Sorry, > it was Bruce and Paul, Matin was in other mailto-threads. Thanks. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf