Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp-00.txt

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 20:35:51 +0100

On Wed Jan 18 21:50:02 2006, [email-masked] wrote:
> 	Title		: Sieve Notification Mechanism: xmpp
> 	Author(s)	: P. Saint-Andre, A. Melnikov
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 7
> 	Date		: 2006-1-18

I think I might be the first person to comment about this on the 
list...

It seems odd that the XMPP message stanza used here has no obvious 
identification as a notification - specifically, XMPP, being XML 
based, could hold (for instance) an OMA EMN, or some other XML 
element which indicated that it was a notification, and ideally 
provided some identification of what the account involved was.

Personally, I'd be happiest with a URI to the new message, where 
possible, but i appreciate there's security concerns there.

If such an XML element were to be put in place, I'd find it nicer it 
it contained the urgency as a normal XML attribute, rather than SHIM. 
I just don't like SHIM.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:55:54 -0600

Dave Cridland wrote:
> I think I might be the first person to comment about this on the list...

Quite possibly. :-)

> identification as a notification 

Typically, notifications in XMPP are sent using type='headline'
(indicating that no response is expected).

> specifically, XMPP, being XML based,
> could hold (for instance) an OMA EMN, or some other XML element which
> indicated that it was a notification, and ideally provided some
> identification of what the account involved was.

Something like the following?

imap:user@host

> possible, but i appreciate there's security concerns there.

What form would such a URI take?

IMHO the account and message identification considerations belong in
draft-ietf-sieve-notify rather than in the XMPP "profile" thereof (which
would simply provide an instantiation of those considerations).

> If such an XML element were to be put in place, I'd find it nicer it it
> contained the urgency as a normal XML attribute, rather than SHIM. I
> just don't like SHIM.

I would not have deep objections to coming up with a more XML-ish format
(XMPP extension) for urgency.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:35:21 +0100

>Something like the following?
IMAP-like URL

imap://user@host
?

>What form would such a URI take?
Can be an IMAP (draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-02.txt) or HTTP URL.

>would simply provide an instantiation of those considerations).
Maybe you are right, but I don't think that draft-ietf-sieve-notify can 
prescribe any particular URI type, because this would vary from one 
deployment/implementation to another.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:19:17 +0100

> Can be an IMAP (draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-02.txt) or HTTP URL.
Could reasonably be a mailto: URL, too, which might merely identify 
the email address the mail arrived at, as a fallback. (OMA's EMN 
format uses a non-IANA registered scheme for that kind of thing, too).

> Maybe you are right, but I don't think that draft-ietf-sieve-notify 
> can prescribe any particular URI type, because this would vary from 
> one deployment/implementation to another.
> 
> 
It could say "Notifications SHOULD include a URL for the recipient to 
use as a hint for locating the message. Where the nature of the 
notification allows, this SHOULD be marked in a machine-readable 
manner (such as an attribute in XML)."

Dave.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:54:17 -0600

Dave Cridland wrote:
> Could reasonably be a mailto: URL, too, which might merely identify the
> email address the mail arrived at, as a fallback. 

True. Or, presumably, a pop: URI.

> (OMA's EMN format uses
> a non-IANA registered scheme for that kind of thing, too).

Non-IANA-registered schemes are scary to me.

>> one deployment/implementation to another.

Sure. Presumably we can say that the account and message SHOULD be
identified by a URI, but that the scheme to use or prefer shall be
determined by local service policy.

> notification allows, this SHOULD be marked in a machine-readable manner
> (such as an attribute in XML)."

I'd strike the parenthetical clause in sieve-notify and in the xmpp
profile say something about how to encapsulate such a URI in an
appropriate XMPP extension (e.g., JEP-0066).

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre