Re: CPIM and URIs (summary)

I have a related question regarding IANA Considerations (section 5 of
draft-ietf-impp-cpim-02). It is stated that "The IANA assigns the 'im' and
'pres' URL schemes." However I do not see these listed on the IANA website
at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes -- are these yet to be
assigned or reserved? (Also, a nit: I think the sentence quoted above
should say "URI schemes" rather than "URL schemes"...)

Thanks.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html

On 29 May 2002, John D. Ramsdell wrote:

> Graham Klyne <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > I'm not sure that there is a compelling reason to base the syntax on
> > the email documents.
> 
> Graham,
> 
> As far as I am concern, your syntax is fine, or a mailto like syntax
> is fine.  What is really important to me is this group reaches a rough
> consensus on the precise syntax of both instant inbox and presence
> URIs, and that that concensus be reflected in the CPIM document in
> clear, consistent text.
> 
> To the rest of you,
> 
> We owe the CPIM authors input on this subject.  How else are they to
> complete their task?  
> 
> I can't help but notice that, with the latest draft of the PIDF
> specification, all but the CPIM document seem complete and viable,
> however the CPIM document is still unfinished.  Three sections,
> Section 4.3.2 "Presence service", Appendix A "Message/CPIM Profile for
> Instant Messaging", and Appendix B "Message/CPIM for Presence" are
> clearly missing text.  If this working group closes down at the end of
> this month, what happens to the CPIM document?  Leaving it unfinished
> is unsettling.
> 
> John
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
> 



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