Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00

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(_at_)example(_dot_)com 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/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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