headers
Bruce Lilly | 2 Jan 2008 02:57
Picon

draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.

N.B. replies directed to the ietf-message-headers [sic] mailing list.

On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:03:13 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Frank Ellermann 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.
> 
> > 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.

You're getting decades ahead of yourself -- see below.

> > 3 - what about Netnews ?
...and telnet and SIP and http...  Are we to see additional drafts for
schemes to cram this information into telnet sessions, web site traffic,
telephone calls, etc.?  Or maybe you'd like to add options to send that
information in every IP packet...:-)

On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:58:23 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: 

> 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?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 2 Jan 2008 17:34
Favicon

Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.

Bruce Lilly wrote:
> N.B. replies directed to the ietf-message-headers [sic] mailing list.
> 
> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:03:13 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Frank Ellermann 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.
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> You're getting decades ahead of yourself -- see below.

Apple Mail has had a feature like this for years (based on information 
in the address book, not a mail header), so I don't think I'm getting 
decades ahead of myself. In fact perhaps I'm several years behind the 
market.

Peter

--

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/x-pkcs7-signature, 7338 bytes
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Bruce Lilly | 2 Jan 2008 22:19
Picon

Re: Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.

On 2008-01-02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Bruce Lilly wrote:

> > You're getting decades ahead of yourself -- see below.
> 
> Apple Mail has had a feature like this for years (based on information 
> in the address book, not a mail header), so I don't think I'm getting 
> decades ahead of myself. In fact perhaps I'm several years behind the 
> market.

You may have missed my point, which is precisely that using an address book
or other repository which can be easily updated via VCards (or LDAP, etc.)
is much more likely to yield results quickly as opposed to convincing
software authors to support special-purpose code to extract unrelated
data from message header fields, waiting for such special-purpose code
to be written, waiting for users to upgrade, etc.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 2 Jan 2008 22:29
Favicon

Re: Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt etc.

Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On 2008-01-02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Bruce Lilly wrote:
> 
>>> You're getting decades ahead of yourself -- see below.
>> Apple Mail has had a feature like this for years (based on information 
>> in the address book, not a mail header), so I don't think I'm getting 
>> decades ahead of myself. In fact perhaps I'm several years behind the 
>> market.
> 
> You may have missed my point, which is precisely that using an address book
> or other repository which can be easily updated via VCards (or LDAP, etc.)
> is much more likely to yield results quickly as opposed to convincing
> software authors to support special-purpose code to extract unrelated
> data from message header fields, waiting for such special-purpose code
> to be written, waiting for users to upgrade, etc.

You may have missed the point of the Jabber-ID header, which we defined 
so that the community of Jabber users could experiment with this usage. 
Whether that usage is the most effective way to tie together an email 
identity with a Jabber identity is another issue. We started to define 
the pres and im headers as a more general approach, but it could be that 
neither the general approach nor the specific Jabber approach is needed 
or even desirable.

Thanks for the feedback -- I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to 
pursue these I-Ds further (which I rather doubt).

Peter
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 3 Jan 2008 05:51
Picon
Picon

Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txtetc.

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> You may have missed the point of the Jabber-ID header, which we
> defined so that the community of Jabber users could experiment
> with this usage. 
[...]
> Thanks for the feedback -- I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide
> to pursue these I-Ds further (which I rather doubt).

IMO the Jabber-ID header field makes sense, it has a modern syntax,
and might be better than attaching a complete vCard to a message:

Apparently the optional "profile" associated with a JID is more or
less the same as a vCard.   The Last Called Jabber-ID draft (you
have already fixed a minor FWS issue) only needs IESG approval and
an RFC number.  Whatever backchamber conspiracy "persuaded" you to
"withdraw" it - but if it was the "DEA directorate" I'll scream.

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 3 Jan 2008 16:50
Favicon

Re: Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txtetc.

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> You may have missed the point of the Jabber-ID header, which we
>> defined so that the community of Jabber users could experiment
>> with this usage. 
> [...]
>> Thanks for the feedback -- I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide
>> to pursue these I-Ds further (which I rather doubt).
> 
> IMO the Jabber-ID header field makes sense, it has a modern syntax,
> and might be better than attaching a complete vCard to a message:
> 
> Apparently the optional "profile" associated with a JID is more or
> less the same as a vCard.   The Last Called Jabber-ID draft (you
> have already fixed a minor FWS issue) only needs IESG approval and
> an RFC number.  Whatever backchamber conspiracy "persuaded" you to
> "withdraw" it - but if it was the "DEA directorate" I'll scream.

On 2007-12-04 I posted an updated version incorporating your FWS and 
Netnews suggestions, and per my request the IANA has added the header to 
the provisional registry (RFC status is not required for registration, 
in accordance with RFC 3864). It is an open question whether I will ever 
request a standards action regarding this specification. As to the DEA, 
I don't think the Drug Enforcement Administration was involved. ;-)

Peter

--

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 3 Jan 2008 18:04
Picon
Picon

Re: draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txtetc.

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

OE claims you wrote nothing, phhhtt... fetching MIME part:

> per my request the IANA has added the header to the 
> provisional registry (RFC status is not required for
> registration, in accordance with RFC 3864).

Yes, but a provisional registration based on an expired
draft is "suboptimal", a permanent registration based on
*some kind of public standard* (not necessarily an RFC)
is better.  

My "marauder's map for the IETF labyrinth" (aka Brian's 
procdoc ION) indicates that XMPP is an SDO with some kind
of IETF liaison, an "XEP" might be good enough.  Okay, if
Graham is no Harry Potter or XMPP fan you need an RFC :-)

> It is an open question whether I will ever request a 
> standards action regarding this specification.

Maybe discuss it with the XMPP community or XMPP Council
or whatever it takes - the SPF organization is far simpler,
we have only one RFC to guard, or four counting those that
we never wanted.  If nobody needs the header field anymore
don't waste time with it.

> I don't think the Drug Enforcement Administration was
> involved. ;-)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anne van Kesteren | 27 Jan 2008 01:37
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Method-Check-Max-Age

Hi,

Based on feedback we renamed Method-Check-Expires to Method-Check-Max-Age  
and instead of an HTTP-date it now takes delta-seconds (RFC 2616).

   http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/

Can I simply e-mail IANA with this update or shall we go for another two  
weeks review here? I'm good either way :-)

By the way, thanks for the help before in getting the headers  
provisionally registered, all worked out:

   http://iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html

Kind regards,

--

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane