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

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.

Yes but that's really just for a friendly consistency.

Matt and I chatted about it over IM and we both recalled that we were 
trying to prevent crazy registrations in .well-known (this was around 
the time that Mark Nottingham was starting to work on the evocatively 
named draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn, now RFC 7320).

> (I note that the well-known URI registry uses the specification
> required policy. Is that adequate for POSH use?).

I think so. Over time we've tried to become more liberal about IANA 
registrations policies.

> But this doc would not
> register anything.

Correct.

> Would that guidance still go in the IANA
> considerations section? I suspect the answer is probably not.

It would go in another section since we wouldn't be registering 
anything, nor would we be providing actionable guidance to IANA.

> Also, does anything implode if some protocol chooses not to use the POSH
> prefix?

No imminent implosions to worry about.

> Do we actually care?

Not much, although as I said it provides a friendly consistency.

> I assume we don’t expect developers to try
> to guess well-known URIs.

That's true.

>>> 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.)

Well, I think the way things are currently documented is misguided, so 
we might as well correct it.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

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