Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-13.txt

On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:

> Changes to address feedback from Joe and Florian.
> 
> Please review carefully, because some of the changes are subtle or provisional - more feedback would be very helpful.

I think the separation of preparation, enforcement, and comparison is very helpful, but I don’t think the description of enforcement is very clear yet — it seems to mix together normalization and validity checking, without a clear discussion of which rules are which.

For example: as far as I can tell, the intention from all discussions is that [email protected] is a valid JID, which a server should normalize and process as [email protected], but “StPeter"@example.com is not, and should be rejected with <jid-malformed/>.  But I don’t see how you can deduce this from the document’s current description of “Enforcement” — both the case mapping and the list of invalid characters are specified as “MUST” requirements.

The “Preparation” stage also doesn’t seem to require that JIDs that are transmitted actually be considered valid by the enforcement stage, which seems like a recipe for interop failure.

6122’s language was "A localpart MUST be formatted such that the Nodeprep profile of [STRINGPREP] can be applied without failing” (and similarly for the other JID parts).  Can language something like this (mutis mutandis for Precis rather than Stringprep) be used, once Enforcement is clear about what is or isn’t considered failure?