Re: Does 6122bis need to update 5122?

Did Peter's comments go to the list? I did not see the original. One comment below:


On Aug 1, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 8/1/14, 10:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> In that case, we'd specify an XMPP URI (RFC 5122).
>> 
>> Thus I might suggest:
>> 
>>   For an XMPP client [RFC6120] using STUN and TURN, the ORIGIN
>>   attribute is an XMPP URI [RFC5122] representing the domainpart
>>   of the client's Jabber ID (JID) [RFC6122]; for example, if the
>>   client's JID is "[email protected]/balcony" then the ORIGIN
>>   attribute would be "xmpp:im.example.com".
> 
> This made me wonder if we need to either rev 5122 to point to 6122bis, or
> just have 6122 update 5122 (which I think I'd prefer, so we don't open up
> a can of IRI worms).

If we need to do one or the other, I would also lean towards updating 5122 in 6122bis. Reving 5122 just for this seems like overkill.