Subject: [Simple] IRI-URI XCAP

From: Anurag Chakravarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:25:12 -0500

Hi,

Presence Authz Policy draft and geo-priv draft mention about IRIs as one
of the ways of identifying a resource. 

In the use case where an XCAP application usage needs to support IRIs,
is the XCAPServer responsible for converting the IRI encoding to an URI
(UTF-8 format) by following the steps defined in draft-duerst-iri-11. 
Or such an use case is not supported by XCAP protocol.

I am a bit confused on the above, could someone please comment on it.

Regards
-Anurag

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:23:48 -0500

Adding geopriv since this is a common issue.

It depends on whether the scheme itself supports IRI. For SIP, it 
doesn't, so the xcap server wouldn't do any conversion. For schemes that 
support IRI, the common policy draft does need to say which format the 
IRI is stored in. We are having similar discussions around domain names 
and IDNs. We should probably be consistent.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:25:18 -0500

This is a slightly different topic, but there are indications that  
SIP URIs can indeed be treated as IRIs, without explicit definition,  
at least from my reading of the IRI spec. We should discuss this with  
the IRI authors, as it would avoid having to solve the problem later.

On Nov 18, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> doesn't, so the xcap server wouldn't do any conversion. For schemes  
> that support IRI, the common policy draft does need to say which  
> format the IRI is stored in. We are having similar discussions  
> around domain names and IDNs. We should probably be consistent.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>