[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Feb 14 14:46:52 UTC 2011

On 2/12/11 8:46 AM, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> 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.
> Remko-
> 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).

BTW we updated the rules about IPv6 addresses in 3920bis, too:


Using the same format in XEP-0198 seems preferable to me.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20110214/8d7ba162/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list