headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 7 Jun 2007 20:20

rfc4622bis: review requested

As previously pointed out, there are some errors in RFC 4622. I have
attempted to correct them here:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt

No one has told me there are errors in rfc4622bis, but since Roy
Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
standards track [1] I want to make sure that my attempted corrections 
are indeed correct.

Unless I receive feedback that rfc4622bis does not fix the problems with
RFC 4622, I will assume that it does, complete another pass through the
document to ensure that it is as correct as I can make it, then request
a standards action from the appropriate AD.

Thanks!

Peter

--

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 7 Jun 2007 20:22

Re: rfc4622bis: review requested

Sorry, left off the reference...

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 01:20:31PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Roy Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
> standards track [1] 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Oct/0033.html

/psa
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julian Reschke | 7 Jun 2007 20:32
Picon
Picon

Re: rfc4622bis: review requested

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> As previously pointed out, there are some errors in RFC 4622. I have
> attempted to correct them here:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt
> 
> No one has told me there are errors in rfc4622bis, but since Roy
> Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
> standards track [1] I want to make sure that my attempted corrections 
> are indeed correct.
> 
> Unless I receive feedback that rfc4622bis does not fix the problems with
> RFC 4622, I will assume that it does, complete another pass through the
> document to ensure that it is as correct as I can make it, then request
> a standards action from the appropriate AD.
> 
> Thanks!

(1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are.

(2) Independently of that, a diff to RFC4622 would be useful, such as in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>.

(3) 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00#section-3.8> 
says: "See Section 5 of RFC 4622, Security Considerations." There may be 
other instances like that.

(4) Front matter should say: "Obsoletes: 4622".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 7 Jun 2007 21:02

Re: rfc4622bis: review requested

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:32:17PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >As previously pointed out, there are some errors in RFC 4622. I have
> >attempted to correct them here:
> >
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt
> >
> >No one has told me there are errors in rfc4622bis, but since Roy
> >Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
> >standards track [1] I want to make sure that my attempted corrections 
> >are indeed correct.
> >
> >Unless I receive feedback that rfc4622bis does not fix the problems with
> >RFC 4622, I will assume that it does, complete another pass through the
> >document to ensure that it is as correct as I can make it, then request
> >a standards action from the appropriate AD.
> >
> >Thanks!
> 
> (1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are.

Added to my working copy.

> (2) Independently of that, a diff to RFC4622 would be useful, such as in 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>.

Do I-Ds generally contain such references? I have not seen them (perhaps
because they could be rather evanescent).

> (3)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 7 Jun 2007 21:11

Re: rfc4622bis: review requested

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:02:23PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:32:17PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > 
> > (1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are.
> 
> Added to my working copy.

The text is as follows:

Appendix A.  Differences From RFC 4622

   Several errors were found in RFC 4622.  This document corrects those
   errors.  The resulting differences from RFC 4622 are as follows:

   o  Specified that the characters "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{", "|",
      and "}" are allowed in XMPP node identifiers but not allowed in
      URIs according to the sub-delims rule.
   o  Specified that the characters '"', "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{",
      "|", "}", '"', "<", and ">" are allowed in XMPP resource
      identifiers but not allowed in URIs according to the pchar rule.
   o  Specified that the foregoing characters must be percent-encoded
      when constructing an XMPP URI.
   o  Corrected the ABNF accordingly.
   o  Updated the examples accordingly.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julian Reschke | 7 Jun 2007 21:14
Picon
Picon

Re: rfc4622bis: review requested

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> ...
>> (2) Independently of that, a diff to RFC4622 would be useful, such as in 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>.
> 
> Do I-Ds generally contain such references? I have not seen them (perhaps
> because they could be rather evanescent).

Nope. But it's useful to get people reviewing stuff. Mentioning the link 
over here is sufficient.

>> (3) 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00#section-3.8> 
>> says: "See Section 5 of RFC 4622, Security Considerations." There may be 
>> other instances like that.
> 
> My working copy has things like "See Section 5 of &rfc.number;" (where
> the &rfc.number; reference is to be replaced by the RFC Editor).

Ah, xml2rfc black magic, to be avoided. It's not XML.

As it's a some-document reference, why mention the document name at all?

>  ...

Best regards, Julian
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 14 Jun 2007 21:58

[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01.txt]

FYI. This version incorporates the feedback I received from Julian 
Reschke. If I receive no further comments in the next two weeks, I will 
request a standards action regarding this document. Thanks! --Peter

-------- Original Message --------
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:50:02 -0400
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01.txt

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

	Title		: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform 
Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence 
Protocol (XMPP)
	Author(s)	: P. Saint-Andre
	Filename	: draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01.txt
	Pages		: 23
	Date		: 2007-6-14
	
This document defines the use of Internationalized Resource
    Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in
    identifying or interacting with entities that can communicate via the
    Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

    This document obsoletes RFC 4622.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane