Subject: [xmpp] Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-address-09.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:19:26 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format'
  (draft-ietf-xmpp-address-09.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-address/

        Technical Summary
          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
          or introduction.

This document defines the format for addresses used in the Extensible Messaging
and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for non-ASCII characters.

As specified in RFC 3920, the XMPP address format re-uses the "stringprep"
technology for preparation of non-ASCII characters, including the Nameprep
profile for internationalized domain names, along with two XMPP-specific
profiles for the localpart and resourcepart.  However, since the publication of
RFC 3920, IDNA2003 has been superseded by IDNA2008 .  As a result, other
protocols that use stringprep (including XMPP) have begun to migrate from
stringprep toward more "modern" approaches.

Because work on improved handling of internationalized addresses is currently in
progress, specifying the XMPP address format in the specification that obsoletes
RFC 3920 would unacceptably delay the revision process.  Therefore, this
specification provides updated documentation of the XMPP address format
(essentially copied from RFC 3920), with the intent that it can be superseded
once work on a new approach to internationalization is complete.

        Working Group Summary
          Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
          For example, was there controversy about particular points
          or were there decisions where the consensus was
          particularly rough?

There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document.

There were concerns that the XMPP addressing format (aka JID) depend on
internationalization technologies (stringprep) that are currently in flux, and
may be in flux for some time. Rather than block progress on this draft, the
working group chose to remove the JID definition to a separate draft (this
document). This specification continues to use stringprep, but was separated out
to make it easier to update in a "modular" fashion once work on a new
internationalization approach is complete.

        Document Quality
          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
          significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
          implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
          merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
          e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
          conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
          there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
          what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
          Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least 25 server implementations, 50 library implementations, and
100 client implementations of the XMPP RFCs; a partial list is located at
<http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/> (that list does not include "software as a
service" implementations hosted by service providers such as Google Talk).
Several downloadable software
implementations in each category have been closely
tracking the changes between RFC 3920 and draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis, and many
others are currently being upgraded or are waiting until the replacement RFC is
published before including the modifications in released software.
Interoperability is continually being verified among implementation teams, over
the XMPP network, and at more formal interoperability
testing events sponsored
by the XMPP Standards Foundation. It is expected that official implementation
reports will be submitted within a year after publication of the revised XMPP
RFCs.

        Personnel
          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
          Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
          experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
          in this document are <to be="" added="" by="" the="" ad="">.'

The document shepherd for this document is Ben Campbell.

The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.