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

On 7/31/15 7:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> If you like, it could even do POSH service names and POSH format
>>> names, and specify ".well-known/posh/<servicename>/<formatname>",
>>
>> Currently it's the <servicename> field that we're most interested in.
>
> Right... and that's what I'm suggesting an FCFS registry for.  You
> register "posh" in .well-known, and you create your own FCFS registry
> for service names, and if you don't care about the format as a
> separate thing, you just register "spice.json" (and so on) in your
> FCFS registry.  That way, Mark doesn't get involved in approving
> "posh.x" and "posh.y" and "posh.z", when Mark has no idea of what to
> say about posh service names (or seedy ones, for that matter).

I'm warming to this suggestion. Part of my hesitation was caused by the 
fact that I had misunderstood RFC 5785. I somehow had the impression 
that it discouraged path components beyond the registered name, but that 
impression was false:

    Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines
    the format and associated media type to be obtained by dereferencing
    the well-known URI.

    It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
    additional path components, query strings and/or fragment identifiers
    to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
    (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).

However, I haven't yet had an opportunity to discuss this in depth with 
my co-author. We'll be back in touch once we've talked about it and 
perhaps discussed it with implementers.

Peter

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