Re: xmpp URIs and 3986

Sorry for the seriously delayed reply...

On 2006-10-06, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
>>> For a requirement I'd expect MUSTard instead of a mere "must".
> 
>> It is not an interoperability issue.  All URIs must
>> match the URI syntax -- that is the whole point of 3986.
> 
>  From my POV the main points of RFC 3986 are the best ABNF for
> <IPv6address> and <IPv4address> published anywhere, and a rather
> convoluted puzzle to determine its updated <uric> (that's not
> the obsolete <uric> in D.2) or its "no-uric" subset of VCHAR.
> 
>   [xmpp URI]
>>> If you say that's broken then the URI review process is broken.
> 
>> Submitting a document for an IRI scheme pretty much guarantees
>> that it won't be reviewed.  It should have just defined a URI
>> scheme and let the IRI spec define the translation.
> 
> It does that in its chapter 3.3.  My contributions are somewhat
> limited to <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/625> and
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/669> in the reviews
> of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-00.txt
> and the updated -01.
> 
> The final draft was -04, and the "official" URI review request
> in <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.uri-review/17> about
> draft -03 apparently got no public reply.
> 
>> There will not be any changes to 3986 -- it is correct.
> 
> The missing <uric> and "no-uric" are a PITA, and RFC 4622 is an
> example why that could be harmful.
> 
>> Just submit errata for the mistakes in 4622.
> 
> I'm not the author and more interested in fixing RFC 3986.  For
> RFC 4408 the missing <uric> is already noted.  I've proposed to
> outsource the 4408-errata as for 2616 - the official process is
> too slow.  In the last archived-at drafts this is also fixed.

I am the author of RFC 4622 and will submit errata for it. My apologies 
for the errors.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml