-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed May 17 11:35:21 2006, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Personally, I'd be happiest with a URI to the new message, where
possible, but i appreciate there's security concerns there.
What form would such a URI take?
Can be an IMAP (draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-02.txt) or HTTP URL.
Could reasonably be a mailto: URL, too, which might merely identify the
email address the mail arrived at, as a fallback.
True. Or, presumably, a pop: URI.
(OMA's EMN format uses
a non-IANA registered scheme for that kind of thing, too).
Non-IANA-registered schemes are scary to me.
IMHO the account and message identification considerations belong in
draft-ietf-sieve-notify rather than in the XMPP "profile" thereof (which
would simply provide an instantiation of those considerations).
Maybe you are right, but I don't think that draft-ietf-sieve-notify
can prescribe any particular URI type, because this would vary from
one deployment/implementation to another.
Sure. Presumably we can say that the account and message SHOULD be
identified by a URI, but that the scheme to use or prefer shall be
determined by local service policy.
It could say "Notifications SHOULD include a URL for the recipient to
use as a hint for locating the message. Where the nature of the
notification allows, this SHOULD be marked in a machine-readable manner
(such as an attribute in XML)."
I'd strike the parenthetical clause in sieve-notify and in the xmpp
profile say something about how to encapsulate such a URI in an
appropriate XMPP extension (e.g., JEP-0066).
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEa415NF1RSzyt3NURAoAQAKCk6HiaZ55W/ZYRGDA0Bte9S4RZuACgzSEK
/7PJORgA7sZKp+DOov85Q94=
=GzCi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature