[Standards-JIG] Re: "JEP-0033: Extended Stanza Addressing" and email (RFC822)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Sep 16 19:31:07 UTC 2004


I have changed the text to read:

    There MAY be more than one replyto or replyroom on a stanza, 
    in which case the reply stanza MUST be routed to all of the 
    addresses.

If this is acceptable, I will publish an updated version of the JEP.

/psa

In article <stpeter-372884.17032915092004 at sea.gmane.org>,
 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> So shall we change that MUST NOT to MAY with the proviso you mention?
> 
> /psa
> 
> In article <82777bea0409051403338a9616 at mail.gmail.com>,
>  Joe Hildebrand <hildjj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > That's fine.  Having multiple reply-to's isn't such a bad thing, I
> > guess, as long as it means "send to all of these, rather than the from
> > address in the outer stanza".
> > 
> > This can be part of the implementation experience...
> > 
> > On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:10:13 +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers
> > <thoutbeckers at splendo.com> wrote:
> > > Currently I'm working on a project involving email and Jabber. This
> > > involves mapping email address headers to Jabber ones. The most logical
> > > solultion for this would ofcourse be JEP-0033, which starts out:
> > > 
> > > "A protocol that enables entities to include RFC822-style address headers
> > > for XMPP stanzas in order to specify multiple recipients or 
> > > sub-addresses."
> > > 
> > > However JEP-0033 Explicitly forbids multiple "reply-to" adressess:
> > > 
> > > "4.6.4 Address type='replyto'
> > > 
> > > This is the address to which all replies are requested to be sent. 
> > > Clients
> > > SHOULD respect this request unless an explicit override occurs. There 
> > > MUST
> > > NOT be more than a single replyto, replyroom, or noreply on a stanza.
> > > [...]"
> > > 
> > > For email however, this is perfectly allowed!




More information about the Standards mailing list