Subject: [xmpp] draft-ietf-xmpp-address

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:40:04 -0500

[as co-chair]

Hi,

The latest version of 3920bis, which we just WGLC'd, split out the JID definition into draft-ietf-xmpp-address. We did this to work around some of the nameprep/newprep issues.

Have people read and understood draft-ietf-xmpp-address? While we will probably WGLC that one later, early feedback would be extremely helpful.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:01:44 -0600

On 6/28/10 4:40 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> [as co-chair]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The latest version of 3920bis, which we just WGLC'd, split out the
> JID definition into draft-ietf-xmpp-address. We did this to work
> around some of the nameprep/newprep issues.
> 
> Have people read and understood draft-ietf-xmpp-address? While we
> will probably WGLC that one later, early feedback would be extremely
> helpful.

draft-ietf-xmpp-address-00 merely pulled the address definition out of
draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis but didn't augment the definition at all (e.g.,
by explaining when and by whom the JID format needs to be enforced).
I'll work to push out a new version by the I-D cutoff date on July 12.
Co-authors welcome. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:47:50 -0700

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Ben Campbell wrote:

> [as co-chair]
>
> Hi,
>
> The latest version of 3920bis, which we just WGLC'd, split out the JID 
> definition into draft-ietf-xmpp-address. We did this to work around some 
> of the nameprep/newprep issues.
>
> Have people read and understood draft-ietf-xmpp-address? While we will 
> probably WGLC that one later, early feedback would be extremely helpful.

Something that bugged me slightly when the text was originally in 3920 was 
that the format of specifying a possible IP address in the JID differed 
from other RFCs.

As the JID address draft refers to the term 'address-literal', which is 
frequently surrounded by '[]' characters in other RFCs, including the 
referenced 3986, some implementers may miss the significance of the lack 
of "[" and "]" in the JID ABNF, and inadvertantly generate non-compliant 
JIDs by reusing code from other projects (the classic 'it looks like an 
email address or URI' argument)

Without changing the current ABNF, I'd like to see a statement in the JID 
address draft explicitly denying the usage of '[]' around IP address 
literals in the domainpart, eg:

  2.2.
   ... it is possible that domainparts that are IP addresses will not be
   acceptable to other services for the sake of interdomain communication.

   <t>Note: The specifying of IP addresses in the domainpart MUST NOT
   include enclosing '[' and ']' characters.</t>

Alternatively, the ABNF for the JID address draft could be brought into 
alignment with 3986 by specifying:

  2.1.
   domain = fqdn / IPv4address / IP-literal
            ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are
            ; defined in RFC3986.

which would result in domainpart allowing a bare IPv4 address ( 
[email-masked]/bar ), and IPv6 and other literal addresses needing to be 
enclosed in '[]' as per RFC3986 .

My other semantic nitpick is para 3 of 2.2:

   A domainpart <t>consisting of a fully qualified domain name</t> MUST be
   an "internationalized domain name" ...

-- 
   Bruce.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:18:11 -0600

> I'll work to push out a new version by the I-D cutoff date on July 12.

Sorry, I meant co-authors welcome on draft-saintandre-xmpp-i18n
(draft-ietf-xmpp-address is merely a copy over from 3920bis so that we
can revise it separately).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/