Re: CPIM and URIs (summary)

So what happened to the idea that an instant inbox URI has the same
syntax as a mailto URI, with the exception that the scheme is "im"?
This is what was specified in CPIM Appendix C.2.  

My original observation about CPIM was that it failed to include a
entry describing RFC 2396 in the reference section, and I should have
also noted that RFC 2368 is also missing.  I then noted that the
description in Section 2.2 suggests that the syntax of a instant inbox
must follow RFC 2822, a conflict with what was specified in CPIM
appendix C.2.

Moving on to Section 3.2, this section specifies that presentities are
named using RFC 822 syntax, and the text suggest (to me) that the
syntax is 

        "pres:" addr-spec

which allows names that are not URIs.  I think this is just an issue
of wording, not intent.  What was meant is that the scheme specific
part of a presence URI, after decoding the % escapes, must be an
addr-spec as defined in RFC 822.

SPECIFIC CHANGE REQUEST

Let me suggest that the mailbox component of an instant inbox URI and
a presence use the definition in RFC 2822, not the one in RFC 822, and
that all the text be changed to be consistent with this modification.

John


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]