[Standards-JIG] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-jabberid-01.txt]

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jul 20 15:11:27 UTC 2006

Dave Cridland wrote:

> The draft has a lot of normative references, many of which are only
> referenced in informative ways. I think only RFC2822, XMPP-URI, and
> RFC4234 are actually needed to implement, RFC2119 is only needed because
> of two uses of MUST and SHOULD NOT, one of which is actually in text
> that's really informative. (Many other specifications are needed in
> practise, but are required only for RFC2822 and XMPP-URI).
> For example, I don't like the use of the UNICODE and US-ASCII references
> - they're embedded in informative text and really aren't relevant beyond
> the discussion of why Jabber-Id uses rules from the URI spec. To put it
> another way, the entire second paragraph could be stripped from section
> 2, and it'd still be a valid spec, so it's at best an informative
> reference.
> That leaves you with just the SHOULD NOT in the security considerations
> - a slight rewording will leave you without any RFC2119 language at all,
> which is, I think, a sign of a very clear specification. (I only know of
> one other recently, RFC4469).

That's all true, and I have no fundamental objections to modifying the
spec accordingly. However, I have to say that the lack of references to
RFC 2119 is, to me, a novel goal for spec writing. And here I thought
that implementors *liked* all the requirements language... :-)


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

-------------- 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/standards/attachments/20060720/77f55290/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list