ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard

2007-08-24 10:44:57

Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real experiment here other than "will anyone use it" and that could be said about a large percentage of PS documents. When I read 2026, this looks like PS.


On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

Eric Allman wrote:
A couple of quick comments:

It isn't clear from the draft if this is intended to be Standards Track;
I assume it is.

My apologies. The intended state is Experimental. As I explained just
now on the APPS-REVIEW list:

***

I think this document should be Experimental. Implementation and
deployment experience will tell us whether this approach has value.
If it does, then we may want to abstract from that experience to
design a more general approach along the lines that Barry has
described [1].

I have received indications from several large entities providing
both email and XMPP-based IM services that they will likely deploy
this technology. The same may be true of one or more mail user agents.
If and when that happens, I will report back (or ask them to do so)
regarding their experience.

***

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/ msg00063.html

I don't see any reason why a new proposed standard should allow obsolete
syntax (specifically, obs-FWS in section 2).

Another reviewer pointed that out as well. As a result, in my working
copy I have changed that to:

"Jabber-ID:" [FWS] pathxmpp [FWS] CRLF

Given that the other official standards are named "XMPP" rather than
"Jabber", why isn't the field name "XMPP-ID"?

Mindshare. Real people know what "Jabber" is. Only us geeks know what
"XMPP" is. Think "email" vs. "SMTP", "web" vs. "HTTP", etc.

The forgery discussion in section 5 might reference 4871 (DKIM-BASE).

That too has been pointed out by another reviewer. In my working copy I
have the following text:

***

Including the Jabber-ID header among the signer header fields in
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) can help to mitigate against forging
of the header (see [DKIMSIG]).

***

(Where [DKIMSIG] is a reference to RFC 4871.)

Thanks for the review.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf