[Standards-JIG] xmpp.org Namespaces

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> On Fri Oct 13 09:12:04 2006, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>>>> It is about identity and globally unique identifier assigned with some
>>>> identity. http:// URLs are automatically assigned to persons owning
>>>> given URL space (controlling server under given domain and URL path).
>>>> That is very convenient for anyone that wants his own XML namespace
>>>> -- I guess it is much easier for an average Joe to get his http://
>>>> namespace (just get some HTTP hosting) than to get hist own URN prefix
>>>> (does URN work this way? I am not sure).
>>> Yes, although webhosting agreements, and even domain name assignments,
>>> are not persistent, so it's not a perfect solution, whereas URN
>>> assignments are, I believe, persistent and also free. Not that I'm
>>> suggesting that everyone rushes out and gets a URN for their very own -
>>> but it makes some sense to consider having the JSF get one for XMPP
>>> namespaces, and assign from within it.
>> Agreed. Not super high on my priority list, but I'll look at it more
>> next week.
> 
> I wrote up an I-D for this while traveling recently:
> 
> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn-00.txt
> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn-00.html
> 
> I'll send the template to the URN-NID list soon.

Done:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg00487.html

No objections have been raised yet. There is a two-week comment period
on the URN-NID list. My understanding is that we probably can begin
using these URNs after the comment period has ended.

The more I think about, the more I want to use these URNs as soon as
possible. At the next XMPP Council meeting (Monday, November 6) I will
raise this issue. I would suggest that we not advance any further XMPP
protocol extensions to Draft until we can use URNs for our namespace
names. If we do that, the specs affected would be the Jingle specs as
well as:

XEP-0136: Message Archiving
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0136.html

XEP-0191: Simple Communications Blocking
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0191.html

However, that would require changing the XML namespaces when we advance
those specs from Experimental to Draft (or before), as follows:

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle
to... urn:xmpp:jingle

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle#errors
to... urn:xmpp:jingle:errors

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/description/audio
to... urn:xmpp:jingle:description:audio

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/info/audio
to... urn:xmpp:jingle:info:audio

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/transport/raw-udp
to... urn:xmpp:jingle:transport:raw-udp

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/blocking
to... urn:xmpp:blocking

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/archive
to... urn:xmpp:archive

from... http://jabber.org/protocol/blocking#errors
to... urn:xmpp:blocking:errors

Thoughts?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061103/8d2c7fd8/smime.bin