[jdev] Re: Two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding

[Ian Paterson]

> While handling the route attribute, should the authority
> component of the IRI be used or ignored?
>
> What's the suggested result when the IRI holds no node identifier? 
> Should the route attribute be silently ignored, or should an error 
> (improper-addressing seems suitable) be thrown? Is it safe to try to
use 
> the authority component address as an last-resort solution in such a
case?

The JEP states that the XMPP IRI indicates the "protocol, host, and
port". Although the current version of the JEP does not currently
explicitly exclude other IRI components, perhaps it should. The XMPP IRI
SHOULD be of the form:
"xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]

Can anyone think of a use case that would be prevented if we formalise
this in the JEP? If not then I would say that 'route' attribute values
with a different form SHOULD be silently ignored.

Also the JEP states that "The XMPP IRI specifcation does not currently
allow a port in an XMPP IRI; the authors will pursue the matter within
the Internet Standards Process." I'd like to fix both these points at
the same time. Peter, is there any news about the possibility of
including ports in an upcoming draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03.txt? (IIRC
this was discussed on the Standards-JIG list a few months ago.)

- Ian