[Council] [Fwd: blocking namespace (was: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org Namespaces)]

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Nov 21 16:23:28 CST 2006


FYI.

Thoughts?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: blocking namespace (was: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org
Namespaces)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:15:19 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Reply-To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <standards-jig at jabber.org>
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
References:
<97B71C0C860DEC40A993AB9F7F0D4335524CE8 at fattire.winfessor.com>
<454669AA.6010307 at jabber.org><454BA121.1030401 at jabber.org>
<200611032200.28910.ogoffart at kde.org>	<454BAFDF.5000004 at jabber.org>
<97B71C0C860DEC40A993AB9F7F0D43357029B0 at fattire.winfessor.com>
<91396C42-B78B-4DF1-96D2-40FBC972C9D2 at el-tramo.be>
<454BC9C7.10700 at jabber.org>	<454BCC37.2040107 at uaznia.net>
<454BCEFE.3000802 at jabber.org>

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Well, that raises a broader issue: should Experimental specs use
>>> experimental namespaces and then be "upgraded" once they move to Draft?
>>> (...)
>>> Probably not, too confusing. But it would clearly differentiate which
>>> protocols are experimental and which are approved.
>> Yes, it sounds confusing. But on the other hand: I just remembered one
>> of proto-JEP about exchanging roster items that never got accepted. It
>> is not accepted, but there are existing implementations, using
>> http://jabber.org/something namespace. This may be confusing, too. Some
>> time ago someone came to this list asking about that protocol, because
>> there was no information on the JEP list but the protocol looked like an
>> official one.
>> So maybe at least proto-XEPs should use temporary namespaces?
> 
> /me ponders
> 
> This is in fact a good argument for assigning urn:xmpp:foo namespaces
> only for approved protocols. Many documents have been published as JEPs
> (now XEPs) and have been discussed within our standards process, but
> they were never approved. Yet those documents contain the old-style
> http://jabber.org/protocol/foo namespaces, indicating that perhaps the
> protocol is somehow official. If experimental protocols used namespace
> names like http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html then someone
> could easily go to that page and see that the specification has or has
> not been approved. But once it has been approved, it gets a permanent
> identifier (URN).
> 
> However, this is a separate issue from whether we seek assignment of an
> xmpp Namespace ID, which I still think is a good thing. Exactly when we
> issue such URNs is a matter of JSF policy, which we should add to
> XEP-0001 and/or XEP-0053 once we define it.

I have been told by an IETF area director that when we start using the
urn:xmpp: NID is up to us. I would like to start using them as soon as
possible because the old-style HTTP URIs are problematic for all the
reasons explained in draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn. Therefore I propose that
we make XEP-0191 the guinea pig and specify the following namespaces for
use in simple communications blocking:

urn:xmpp:blocking
urn:xmpp:blocking:errors

Objections?

Peter

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


-- 
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/council/attachments/20061121/9c19fe2f/smime.bin


More information about the Council mailing list