Subject: Re: [xmpp] Cross-WG WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-18

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:57:39 +0000

On 27 February 2015 at 02:17, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We actually did a WGLC on this about a year ago, but much has changed
> since then. Please send comments to the authors and both lists by March 12,
> 2015. If you've read the draft and consider it ready to go, please send
> comments to that effect.
>

Non-Precis comments:

1) "at slash at".

The domainpart of a jid is described as being after the first '@', if any.
That's not always true; consider the following legal jid:

service.example.org/[email-masked]

This issue arises because the resourcepart can contain an '@', and to find
the domainpart we need to (conceptually) remove the resourcepart first.

So I think this implies two things: Firstly, the text at the beginning of
§3.2 needs changing slightly, perhaps:

The domainpart of a jid is that portion which remains once any portion from
the first '/' character to the end of the string has been removed (if there
is a '/' character present), and then any portion from the beginning of the
string to the first '@' character (if there is a '@' character present).

This is ugly text.

The second implication is that the examples could use the nasty cases like
this.

2) "case folding examples"

The examples given as 8, 9, and 10 confuse me more by their presence than
their absence, because the resourcepart of a jid is compared
case-insensitively anyway - I don't know Greek well enough to know if the
final sigma would be used at the end of a localpart, but it seems to me
that the capital and lower case sigma example might be best re-cast as a
localpart example.

(When I read the details of the case-map versus final examples, I worried
that we'd changed the comparison for resourceparts to case-folding
somewhere...)

3) "angle brackets"

The presence of angle brackets in example 16 is, I think, more confusing
than the thing it's attempting to solve; in part because the < does indeed
make the jid illegal under §3.3.1, so I didn't initially read the
explanation...

4) "applicability to what now?"

Can we change §3.4.1's title to "Applicability within XMPP extensions" or
something?

I'll see if I can navigate the Turtles of Precis enough to come up with
some comments there. Sadly I suspect I won't be able to sensibly comment
until I've tried implementing.

Dave.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:46:31 -0600

Hi Dave, thanks for the review. Comments inline.

On 3/5/15 9:57 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 27 February 2015 at 02:17, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     We actually did a WGLC on this about a year ago, but much has
>     changed since then. Please send comments to the authors and both
>     lists by March 12, 2015. If you've read the draft and consider it
>     ready to go, please send comments to that effect.
>
>
> Non-Precis comments:
>
> 1) "at slash at".
>
> The domainpart of a jid is described as being after the first '@', if
> any. That's not always true; consider the following legal jid:
>
> <http://service.example.org/[email-masked]>
>
> This issue arises because the resourcepart can contain an '@', and to
> find the domainpart we need to (conceptually) remove the resourcepart first.

True.

> So I think this implies two things: Firstly, the text at the beginning
> of §3.2 needs changing slightly, perhaps:
>
> The domainpart of a jid is that portion which remains once any portion
> from the first '/' character to the end of the string has been removed
> (if there is a '/' character present), and then any portion from the
> beginning of the string to the first '@' character (if there is a '@'
> character present).
>
> This is ugly text.

Well, it is accurate, which is an improvement.

> The second implication is that the examples could use the nasty cases
> like this.

Yes. Will add.

> The examples given as 8, 9, and 10 confuse me more by their presence
> than their absence, because the resourcepart of a jid is compared
> case-insensitively anyway - I don't know Greek well enough to know if
> the final sigma would be used at the end of a localpart, but it seems to
> me that the capital and lower case sigma example might be best re-cast
> as a localpart example.

That's a good suggestion, thanks.

> (When I read the details of the case-map versus final examples, I
> worried that we'd changed the comparison for resourceparts to
> case-folding somewhere...)
>
> 3) "angle brackets"
>
> than the thing it's attempting to solve; in part because the < does
> indeed make the jid illegal under §3.3.1, so I didn't initially read the
> explanation...

I think it would be best for all of the examples to be enclosed in angle 
brackets (this is what we did in the precis-nickname spec).

> Can we change §3.4.1's title to "Applicability within XMPP extensions"
> or something?

Sure.

> until I've tried implementing.

That's quite possible. Internationalization is perplexing.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:30:35 +0000

> brackets (this is what we did in the precis-nickname spec).

Yes, that would also work for me.

Dave.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:56:13 -0600

On 3/9/15 4:30 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>
> On 9 March 2015 at 21:46, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>         3) "angle brackets"
>
>     I think it would be best for all of the examples to be enclosed in
>     angle brackets (this is what we did in the precis-nickname spec).
>
>

OK, I'm about to submit a revised I-D, then.

Peter