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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 2/23/15 3:10 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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.)
> 

I also recall discussing it with Mark, but I can't find any
documentation to back that up either.  As I recall, the intent was to
constrain the crazy stuff future people might do in the .well-known
namespace.

I'd rather change this to guidance on how to register an app-specific
POSH URI, than try to do something new-ish with the existing IANA
tables.  The authors will discuss it and come up with a proposed change.


- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email protected] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU66eBAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1J/wIAIvDJFiiq/dE7HsnilGX0kDz
o5jqXm9xVXm4HatqRHmyeixswU+5qLe5B2XNARoRcXMAfm2Ep/IpVd2aYwqVveAx
QU0xGmz7EOZXK8CI5oC9wFCP1e4ZEEli8U4XmmnQAS13jVvE/uTjXEjLJmrEezB1
f/SN8reQGmNpeU9HgX8nqdqVR90poIIF3c13baeDRXP49tDa1h93NsdB80N7AF6U
QJr3rTkcwNjNYZkltWNWnmsbI+BOktHavTJBZpnsTsGaWNP+bJSS9KrxO7EVMcp5
b8r6fbetSGwTigSnuxGhY/nnvffkvV4SdjlOndx7yz4yMTDa1PNkceL2OH9O2eg=
=cfbb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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