[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regarding JEP-0124HTTP Binding

Mridul Muralidharan Mridul.Muralidharan at Sun.COM
Fri Dec 2 15:27:52 UTC 2005


Hi,

   The 124 spec mentions that the route attribute should follow the 
syntax as specified in ref 11.
This reference seems to be MIA (reason mentioned as ref 12 I guess ?).

   JEP 147 which seems to talk about related subject - is it correct to 
assume that this is what is going to be the definition for XMPP URI/IRI ?
If yes , then I am wondering how 124 , which is a draft standard , could 
depend on an expirimental JEP.

Thanks,
Mridul


Peter Saint-Andre wrote On 11/30/05 03:21,:
> Ian Paterson wrote:
> 
>>> Let's say I connect to http://proxy.saint-andre.com/ (my personal 
>>> HTTP binding proxy) and I use it to log in to my stpeter at jabber80.com 
>>> account at port 443 rather than 5222.
>>> So we're currently saying that I would tell my proxy this:
>>>
>>>    route='xmpp:jabber80.com:443'
>>>
>>> Which we hope means "connect to jabber80.com over a TCP connection on 
>>> port 443 and expect to communicate via XMPP, pretty please" but in 
>>> fact (per Section 2.8 of draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri) means "connect to 
>>> your usual XMPP server and generate an XMPP stanza based
>>> on application inputs and then send that stanza to jabber80.com
>>
>>
>> The extra features that draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri adds to a simple
>> URI/IRI are important and good. They go well beyond what is possible
>> with other URI specs like 'mailto' and 'http'. For example, there is no
>> need for contextual information like the HTML: <FORM method="post"
>> enctype=...><INPUT>...
>>
>> However, IMHO it should *also* be possible to use a URI simply to
>> identify a resource. AFAIK that is the fundamental property of any URI
>> scheme.
> 
> 
> It *is* possible. The URI xmpp:memberbot at jabber.org identifies a bot 
> that is used for voting by members of the Jabber Software Foundation. 
> The URI xmpp:jdev at conference.jabber.org identifies a multi-user chat 
> room that is popular among developers. The URI xmpp:jabber80.com 
> identifies a Jabber server that happens to communicate over HTTP ports 
> (not standard XMPP ports) so that those behind XMPP-unfriendly firewalls 
> can use Jabber. Presumably such URIs MUST NOT include a port if standard 
> XMPP ports are to be used. Thus the following are, I think, non-sensical 
> as URIs when used as mere identifiers:
> 
> xmpp:memberbot at jabber.org:5222
> xmpp:jdev at conference.jabber.org:5222
> 
> What about jabber80.com? It doesn't communicate on the standard XMPP 
> ports. So is the following identifier confusing?
> 
> xmpp:jabber80.com
> 
> Well, it *is* an XMPP server, so identifying it that way seems OK. If 
> you attempt to interact with that server following the procedures in 
> draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri then you will be fine if both the client and 
> server also support SRV records as specified in RFC 3920, since you'll 
> find out it uses port 80 rather than port 5222 for client-to-server 
> connections.
> 
> However, if jabber80.com does not support SRV records (or clients that 
> wish to connect to it do not support SRV lookups) then we have a 
> problem, because we need to specify the port, like so:
> 
> xmpp:jabber80.com:443
> 
> I get a bit queasy about that because it seems unnecessary -- indeed, 
> the more I think about it the less I think it's a good idea to modify 
> the XMPP URI scheme in order to accommodate servers and clients that 
> don't support SRV records. Is there another use case I'm missing? (BTW, 
> I'd bet the IESG won't like adding port to the XMPP URI scheme, either, 
> since they'll say "well, you already have a well-defined mechanism for 
> discovering the port via SRV records, why are you putting that in the 
> URI scheme?" So I'd rather just avoid that IESG feedback if I can...)
> 
> I realize that previously I was fine with this (we added it to version 
> 1.2 of JEP-0124 with a note about modifying the URI draft), but at this 
> point I'd be more comfortable in JEP-0124 to make the 'route' attribute 
> specify a "hostport" such as jabber80.com:443 (see RFC 3261 for the 
> definition of a hostport).
> 
> Peter
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list