W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2005

Re: XMPP IRIs: feedback requested

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:43:51 -0600
Message-ID: <43065297.9040107@jabber.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote:
> Peter, there aren't "IRI schemes", there are only "URI schemes"
> even though URIs may appear in IRI form. 

OK.

> You must provide URI
> syntax for systems that accept URIs and don't accept IRIs.
> Your use of examples with "#xNNN;" format just confuses the issue.

Isn't the transformation of an IRI to URI syntax handled by RFC 3987? 
Part of our reason (also requested during IESG review of the antecedent 
I-D) for defining these identifiers as IRIs rather than URIs was so that 
we could re-use the transformation rules in RFC 3987 rather than 
defining something new.

> I'm uncomfortable with the use of "//" "/" to delimit 
> 'auth-xmpp' authority. I don't understand how you map 
> a URI with this scheme into a set of operations using the
> XMPP protocol, and Iím not sure where you explain that.

Section 2.3 of draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-00 states:

    ... in the absence of an authority component the processing
    application would authenticate as a configured user at a
    configured XMPP server. The presence of an authority component
    (always preceded by "//") signals the processing application to
    authenticate as the node@domain specified in the authority
    component, rather than as a configured node@domain.

And Section 2.8.1 states that further processing might involve:

    Authenticating either as the user specified in the authority
    component or as the configured user at the configured XMPP server
    if not already so authenticated.

This is probably not explicit enough -- the text probably needs to 
explain that by "authenticate" here we mean initiate an XML stream, 
negotiate TLS and SASL, and bind a resource (if connecting as a client) 
as defined in RFC 3920.

>    2.  optionally (if an authority component is to be included), the
>        characters "//", an authority component of the form node@domain,
>        and the character "/"
> 
> indicating a trailing "/" is required, but it doesn't seem to be.

Section 3.2 of RFC 3986 states:

    The authority component is preceded by a double slash ("//") and is
    terminated by the next slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), or number
    sign ("#") character, or by the end of the URI.

So the trailing "/" is not required -- the authority component must be 
followed by "/", "?", "#", or the end of the URI. I'll clarify that.

> If you could kindly review the proposed new URI registration
> rules (now in 'last call'), that would be useful:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guideli
> nes-04.txt

I reviewed an earlier verion but not -05, so I'll read it again.

Thanks,

Peter


Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 21:43:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT