The Jabber Identifier is associated with the author of the message; see
[MESSAGE]. If the "From:" header field contains more than one mailbox, the
Jabber-ID header should not be added to the message. There should be no
more than one instance of the Jabber-ID header.
Seems like good text to me, too.
The more general challenges to this specification really are classic and
reasonable, but only if there is no real motivation for immediate use. They
call for a more general solution, which is always a desirable thing, but they
do not seem to represent a real constituency for doing the work now or, more
importantly, for using it. (Or am I wrong?)
As I understand it, the current draft represents a motivated group that is
trying to satisfy a specific requirement and already has some track record.
For me, that should partition comments between "it won't work" versus "it
could be better". The concern about ambiguity if there is more than one
author (rfc2822.From) is an example of not working, absent clarifying text.
The concern about a broader base of utility is in the latter camp of looking
I preferred not to suggest associating the header with the Sender: header
field as that field may be added at a later stage,
Associating an XMPP address with the author makes sense to me. Associating
one with the rfc2822.Sender does not, since that address is supposed to relate
to operations issues, not content-related exchanges.
Speaking of Jabber vs. XMPP, I do not understand characterizing this as
XMPP-related work if the references and label are to Jabber. If Jabber is the
context, then this clearly is an Informational document, since it pertains to
a base that is outside the IETF (or other?) formal standards work. If it
relates to XMPP, then shouldn't that be the reference and label?
(And, yes, I understand the cultural issue here, but alas, folks chose to name
the IETF standard "XMPP" and I think we are stuck with that as the label,
unless someone wants to try to alter the name of the base standard.)
Ietf mailing list