At 12:03 06-11-2007, 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 (as
defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.
I read draft-saintandre-header-im-00. I must have missed
draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.
I hope there's not going to be a new header each time there's a new
feature. :-)
> 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.
Could we have only one I-D which is extensible to encompass all these
schemes? I assume that will be draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.
BTW, the Author's address in your draft seems incomplete.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf