Re: Does 6122bis need to update 5122?

I don't think I've seen it on the list.

DMARC problem?

On 8/8/14, 8:27 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Hildebrand