Re: XMPP IRIs: feedback requested

These edits are reflected in draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-02, which I've 
just submitted. Until it is published, you may find it here:

http://www.xmpp.org/drafts/

/psa

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 
>> 1)
>> 3920 references 3454 (Stringprep), which references ISO10646 and 
>> Unicode3.2,
>> not UCS2.  There's lots of stuff that's not in the BMP that are still 
>> valid
>> characters in a JID.
> 
> 
> Will correct.
> 
>> Other than that, I think the intro is very good.
> 
> 
> Super.
> 
>> 2.2)
>> I think there's a syntax bug in the ABNF.  hier-xmpp in the xmppiri
>> production doesn't have a definition.  Do you mean ihierxmpp?
> 
> 
> Yes, sorry.
> 
>> Should '%' be in nodeallow or resallow?  Probaby not, since that 
>> messes up
>> pct-encoded.  If not, fix 2.7.2 and 2.8.2 as well.
> 
> 
> They are allowed by RFC 3920 but shouldn't be allowed in XMPP URIs/IRIs 
> for the reason you adduce.
> 
>> The resallow production makes me realize, how come "&'<> aren't 
>> disallowed
>> in resourceprep?  Don't they have the same XML consequences as in node?
> 
> 
> Sounds like a matter for rfc3920bis.
> 
>> Using section 3.2 of 3987 to convert to URIs means that IDNs get 
>> %-encoded,
>> not punycoded.  My understanding was that this was Leslies original beef.
>> How come she didn't have this objection to 3987?
> 
> 
> I think her main concern was that draft-saintandre-xmpp-uri-* defined 
> its own rules and didn't re-use what's in RFC 3987.
> 
>> 2.3)
>> Can we have language that says that the auth section is optional if you
>> already have default credentials?  I think that's right, but am 
>> willing to
>> be talked out of it.
> 
> 
> Yes, that sounds right.
> 
>> 2.5)
>> Do we ever need to do more than one action at a time?  Example: 
>> presence-sub
>> and roster update for nick.  I suppose we could update JEP-147 so that
>> ?subscribe or ?roster or ?something-new does both. 
>> ?rostersub;name=Romeo for
>> example.
> 
> 
> Sure. I don't see a strong need to allow multiple actions at once -- 
> that opens the can of worms a little more widely than I'd like.
> 
>> Can the examples use "example-node" rather than "random-node"?  They 
>> aren't
>> really random, and I don't want people to think they can send to a random
>> person this way.
> 
> 
> Sure, that makes sense.
> 
>> 2.7.3)
>> (nitpick) Maybe a note that points out that &#x159; and &#x10D; are 
>> already
>> in stringprep canonical form?  Maybe it will save someone else from 
>> wanting
>> to double-check... :)
> 
> 
> Nod.
> 
>> 5)
>> Maybe mention SPIM due to harvesting (same as mailto)?
>> No passwords in the iauthxmpp section, unlike http: or ftp:.  Aren't 
>> needed
>> since we have SASL ANONYMOUS.
> 
> 
> Good point, I'll add that.
> 
> Peter
>