Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04: (with COMMENT)

> section 8: I dislike the "{servicedesc}" thing, but
> that's just me. Breaking down servicedesc further into
> "{service}.{proto}" is worse though, I don't get why
> that's a good idea at all, nor the "_" convention. If
> you want/need all that you should've just registered
> "posh" as a well-known and then said the the rest of the
> pathname was whatever structure you needed and not
> possibly end up registering loads of DNA .well-known
> URLs.

Yep... I made a similar comment, which Peter and I have been
discussing.  He's mulling over what to do.

Barry