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

On 8/11/15 7:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2015, at 19:57, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> For the record, I do not object to this change. I can even see the
> advantage. But let's keep in mind that there was working group consensus
> (such as it was) to do things as currently written. We can change that
> if there is good reason--but I want to make sure people think the reason
> is really good enough (with all due respect to Barry and Stephen).
>
> If we do change it, we should probably consider an abbreviated WGLC on
> just this point. (Or perhaps the discussion with implementors would
> serve the same purpose.)

Hi all,

A quick status update...

The authors have provisionally addressed all of the other issues from 
IESG review of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh and draft-ietf-xmpp-dna in our 
working copies. Matt and I are currently pinging implementers and we aim 
to finish gathering feedback from them by the end of this week. We'll 
report further once that is done.

Peter