[Fwd: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-header-im-00.txt]

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:00:02 -0500
Subject: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-header-im-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : The IM-ID Header Field
	Author(s)       : P. Saint-Andre
	Filename        : draft-saintandre-header-im-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2007-11-05

This document defines a header field that enables the author of an
email message to include an Instant Messaging (IM) URI in the message
header block for the purpose of associating the author with an
instant messaging address.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-header-im-00.txt

FYI

[Fwd: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt]

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:00:02 -0500
Subject: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : The Presence-ID Header Field
	Author(s)       : P. Saint-Andre
	Filename        : draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2007-11-05

This document defines a header field that enables the author of an
email message to include a Presence URI in the message header block
for the purpose of associating the author with an address that
provides information about network availability, also known as
"presence".

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

FYI

Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

Peter Saint-Andre wrote on the message-headers list:

> FYI

Thanks.  Frankly, I hate these drafts.  

1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ?
3 - what about Netnews ?
4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ?
5 - jabberid had an interesting IRI example, the new
    drafts claim that juliet <at> example.com is an URI.
6 - I've never seen a pres: URI outside of RFC 3859,
    why should I wish to see this in a mail header ?
7 - the jabberid was obviously about xmpp:, what are 
    im: and pres: about ?
8 - RFC 3859 still uses RFC 2396 syntax on top of a
    RFC 2822 <mailbox>.  That's known to be wrong if
    I recall discussions with Paul and Martin on the
    URI list about RFC 2368 (mailto) correctly. 
9 - Likewise RFC 3860.  I hope you're not trying to
    move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields.

 Frank

Cc: general list, after all jabberid was Last Called.

Re: Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote on the message-headers list:
> 
>> FYI
> 
> Thanks.  Frankly, I hate these drafts.

Great! Honest feedback is appreciated and agreement is overrated. :)

> 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?

Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes (as
defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.

> 2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ?

Presumably people who want to show presence icons next to the names of
message authors.

> 3 - what about Netnews ?

Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted):

http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.xml?r1=1337&r2=1339

> 4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ?

That is still to be determined.

Re: Re:I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
> Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
> features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes

Two schemes with a semantics somewhere between about: and file: ...
if I am interested in pres:juliet <at> example.com, can say Psi help me ?

>> 2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ?
> Presumably people who want to show presence icons next to the names
> of message authors.

Okay, but Gmail can manage that without a fancy Pres-ID: mail header
field.  I also don't quite believe in this separation "feature".

>> 3 - what about Netnews ?
> Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted)

Thanks.

>> 4 - what's going on with the nice jabberid draft ?
> That is still to be determined.

You've now demonstrated your good will wrt im: and pres:, after
that exercise please let's continue with the jabberid.  It was
almost perfect, "experimental" status is also okay.

>> 5 - jabberid had an interesting IRI example, the new
>>     drafts claim that juliet <at> example.com is an URI.

Re: Re: Re:I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>>> 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
>> Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
>> features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes
> 
> Two schemes with a semantics somewhere between about: and file: ...
> if I am interested in pres:juliet <at> example.com, can say Psi help me ?

Not unless Psi implements resolution of the pres: URI scheme (i.e.,
doing the required SRV lookup). As far as I know, Psi does not yet
implement that.

>>> 2 - who wants to publish pres URIs in email headers ?
>> Presumably people who want to show presence icons next to the names
>> of message authors.
> 
> Okay, but Gmail can manage that without a fancy Pres-ID: mail header
> field.  I also don't quite believe in this separation "feature".

Gmail is an integrated service. What if you're using mutt or Thunderbird
or some random MUA and you want to show presence information about a
message author?

>>> 3 - what about Netnews ?
>> Yes, I added that in version -01 this morning (not yet submitted)
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

At 12:03 06-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
>
>Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
>features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes (as
>defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.

I read draft-saintandre-header-im-00.  I must have missed 
draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.

I hope there's not going to be a new header each time there's a new 
feature. 

> > 9 - Likewise RFC 3860.  I hope you're not trying to
> >     move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields.
>
>By no means. I am trying to address feedback received during the Last
>Call on draft-saintandre-jabberid. Part of that feedback raised the
>issue of working on a more generic solution that is not tied to a
>specific instant messaging and presence technology (in this case, XMPP).
>These I-Ds are my good-faith attempt at fulfilling my promise to work on
>a more generic solution.

Could we have only one I-D which is extensible to encompass all these 
schemes?  I assume that will be draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.

BTW, the Author's address in your draft seems incomplete.

Regards,
-sm 

Re: Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

SM wrote:
> At 12:03 06-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> > 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
>>
>> Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
>> features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes (as
>> defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.
> 
> I read draft-saintandre-header-im-00.  I must have missed
> draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.

I submitted both of the following:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-im-00

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-pres-00

> I hope there's not going to be a new header each time there's a new
> feature. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.

>> > 9 - Likewise RFC 3860.  I hope you're not trying to
>> >     move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields.
>>
>> By no means. I am trying to address feedback received during the Last
>> Call on draft-saintandre-jabberid. Part of that feedback raised the
>> issue of working on a more generic solution that is not tied to a

Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>I submitted both of the following:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-im-00
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-pres-00

Thanks.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
>presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
>im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.

Quoting the drafts:

    Because almost all human users of instant messaging systems are users
    of email systems, it can be helpful for such users to specify their
    (IM/presence) URIs in the email messages they author.

Although IM and presence are separate domains of functionality, the 
proposed mail headers for them :-

   1. provides a standard location for the exchange of such information

   2. are associated with the author of the message

   3. uses similar syntax for the URI

>What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
>perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,

Re: Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

SM wrote:
> At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
>> presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
>> im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.
> 
> Quoting the drafts:
> 
>    Because almost all human users of instant messaging systems are users
>    of email systems, it can be helpful for such users to specify their
>    (IM/presence) URIs in the email messages they author.
> 
> Although IM and presence are separate domains of functionality, the
> proposed mail headers for them :-
> 
>   1. provides a standard location for the exchange of such information
> 
>   2. are associated with the author of the message
> 
>   3. uses similar syntax for the URI
> 
>> What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
>> perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
>> according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
>> distinct domains of functionality, which just happen to often be
>> implemented and deployed in the same systems or services.
> 
> You are viewing the im: scheme and the pres: scheme from the point of
> view of their RFCs which is different from the functionality offered by