[Standards-JIG] XMPP IRI status? (was: Two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding)

Hal Rottenberg halr9000 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 17 16:13:16 UTC 2005

Question came up to me yesterday, and now this thread reminds me again
today.  Has the IETF draft moved forward any?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guus der Kinderen <Guus.der.Kinderen at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: [jdev] Re: Two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding
To: jdev at jabber.org

Ian Paterson wrote:
> The JEP states that the XMPP IRI indicates the "protocol, host, and
> port". Although the current version of the JEP does not currently
> explicitly exclude other IRI components, perhaps it should. The XMPP IRI
> SHOULD be of the form:
> "xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]
> Can anyone think of a use case that would be prevented if we formalise
> this in the JEP? If not then I would say that 'route' attribute values
> with a different form SHOULD be silently ignored.

IMHO: if an application ask for an IRI and gets a perfectly fine IRI, it
shouldn't return an error. In case something more specific is required,
ask for something more specific.

If IRIs won't always be accepted, maybe the route attribute should drop
the IRI requirement, and get some specific string requirement instead.
That would also solve the ports-aren't-included-in-IRIs problem.

Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
im:hal at jabber.rocks.cc

More information about the Standards mailing list