Subject: [xmpp] Splitting out JID

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:07:46 -0700

After the WG meeting today, Ben suggested that we split the current version
of section 3 of 3920bis out into its own I-D (e.g. draft-ietf-xmpp-jid), and
give 3920bis a normative reference to it.  This would allow us to move
everything forward without waiting for the output of newprep, and make it
much easier to replace JID definition, normalization, and comparison with a
newprep version later on.

Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Jack Moffitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:26:45 -0600

> Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

I'm +1 on doing such a split.

jack.

---

From: Tuomas Koski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:21:11 +0100

Good Morning / afternoon / night,

> Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

According to "pros" mentioned, such a split makes good sense to me. +1

Are there any "cons" doing the split?

Cheers,
--
tuomas

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:59:01 +0000

> Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

No.

/K

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:45:20 -0700

> Are there any "cons" doing the split?

The primary "con" I see is that not everything will be in the same
document. However, I think the benefit of being able to revise the
address format spec independent of the protocol spec outweighs that cost.

Peter

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