PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh

Hi Peter and Matt,

I’m in the process of doing a PROTO writeup for POSH, and have one 
possibly material comment, and a few minor comments. Apologies for not 
turning these up during WLGC, and also if these rehash stuff we’ve 
already closed on. (The chairs should yell at me.)

— Material Comment: IANA Considerations

These seems a bit unusual, since we are registering a “fragment” 
that other protocols will use to register actual URIs.  This does not 
seem to have been contemplated by RFC5785. This also the side effect of 
establishing rules for certain entries in the well-known URI registry 
over and above those from RFC5785.

Does it make sense to actually register the prefix itself, since it’s 
not really a URI? It would seem reasonable to leave the actual 
registration to protocols that need to register posh URIs.

I see Mark Nottingham is the expert for the well-known URI registry. By 
any chance has anyone run this by him?


Editorial Comments:

— section 3, numbered steps:

Which server is the POSH server? Is that the hosting server, or the web 
server that serves the well-known URI? I can infer the answer, but it 
would be good to be explicit.

— section 3.2, 3rd paragraph from end: (starting with “Note: The 
JSON document…”)

There’s 2119 language in a “Note”. I tend to read indented notes 
as parenthetical. If it needs 2119 language it should probably be part 
of the mainstream text.

— Security Considerations:

“To protect against circular
    references, clients MUST NOT follow an infinite number of 
redirects.”

That’s a bit of a <ducking> circular reference. Or at least a 
tautology. Perhaps it could be non-normative, or reformulated as 
something to the effect of “… MUST limit the number of 
redirects…”

—References:

IDNits reports a few out-of-date references.

Thanks!

Ben.

_______________________________________________
xmpp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp