Re: PROTO review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh

Hi Peter, further comments below. I removed sections that do not seem to 
need further discussion.

On 23 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

[...]

>>
>> — 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.
>
> You make a very good point. I think you're right that it makes more 
> sense for the POSH spec to provide instructions to protocols that need 
> to register POSH URIs - as, for instance, draft-ietf-xmpp-dna does - 
> but not to register a URI prefix (instead, just say "please use the 
> prefix").

So if I understand the implications of this path, it would mean we give 
guidance that any protocol that uses posh should register a “posh.*” 
URL. (I note that the well-known URI registry uses the specification 
required policy. Is that adequate for POSH use?). But this doc would not 
register anything. Would that guidance still go in the IANA 
considerations section? I suspect the answer is probably not.

Also, does anything implode if some protocol chooses not to use the POSH 
prefix? Do we actually care? I assume we don’t expect developers to 
try to guess well-known URIs.
>
>> I see Mark Nottingham is the expert for the well-known URI registry. 
>> By
>> any chance has anyone run this by him?
>
> I have a vague recollection of having talked with him about it once, 
> but I can find no evidence of that in my email folders. If we agree 
> that what you suggest is the best approach, then I think it makes 
> sense to update the document before reaching out to him (and in fact 
> that might not be necessary since this document wouldn't be doing 
> anything unusual).

I agree that if we don’t register anything, and don’t try to change 
the well-known URI registration policy for posh purposes, it might not 
be necessary to involve Mark. (But for the record, if he were okay with 
the way things are currently documented, I would back off on this 
point.)

[...]

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