[Standards-JIG] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-jabberid-01.txt]
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jul 20 15:30:22 UTC 2006
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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
>> 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... :-)
BTW, I've made these changes in my working copy but I won't submit an
updated version until the XMPP-URI document is published as an RFC.
The CVS diff is here:
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards