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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Dec 2 17:09:19 UTC 2005


Ian Paterson wrote:

> Peter is proposing that the 'route' attribute should be a simple
> "host[:port]" value. Other possibilities *might* be "xmpp:host[:port]"
> (compatible with existing JEP-0124 spec) or just "xmpp:host". The latter
> is compatible with XMPP URI/IRIs ('route' is after all an XMPP resource
> identifier), but perhaps it is not ideal, see
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2005-June/007818.html.

OK, so we have three options:

1. host[:port]

    Pro: specifies everything we need
    Con: not backwards-compatible with what we have now
         doesn't support (future?) non-XMPP connections

2. xmpp:host[:port]

    Pro: backwards-compatible with what we have now
    Con: looks like an XMPP URI but isn't (confusing?)

3. xmpp:host

    Pro: ?
    Con: doesn't support ports
         not backwards-compatible with what we have now

I think (3) is a non-starter. I don't like the confusing aspect of (2) 
and personally I doubt that this spec will ever be used for non-XMPP 
connections, so I prefer (1). Have I missed any pros and cons?

P

-- 
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: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20051202/9caf792f/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list