[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Ben Schumacher ben.schumacher at webex.com
Sat Feb 12 15:46:54 UTC 2011

On 2/12/11 5:09 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>> I think using RFC3986 (2732) formatting rules for supporting IPv6
>> address/port in a single attribute would be fine. Any software that intends
>> to communicate over IPv6 is probably going to need to understand that format
>> at some point.
> Well, we haven't needed it so far, and this XEP would be the first
> time we do, but I may be missing something. That's why I'm also in
> favor of splitting it into a separate attribute.


Splitting is fine with me, but I do believe understanding that IPv6 
address in the "host:port" syntax need to be in square brackets (it's 
really that simple) is going to be necessary for application looking to 
thrive in an IPv6 world.

Otherwise one thing you might be missing the ability to connect to an 
through a proxy at an IPv6 address. Or the full use of the XEPs that 
rely on a URI parsing (XEP-0070, XEP-0124, etc).


More information about the Standards mailing list