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

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Ian Paterson wrote:
>> Including the host and port still seems fine to me, I'm just not 
>> convinced it needs to be represented as an xmpp: URI.
>> Why not just route="host:port"?
> 
> Well, URI's are for "identifying entities that can communicate via
> XMPP". 

Well, xmpp: URIs are for use by non-native systems, rather than native 
XMPP systems. We don't say <message to='xmpp:peter at jabber.org'> or use 
them anywhere else in the protocol suite. So it strikes me as a little 
odd to use them here.

> And the idea was that, a JEP-0124 proxy should also be able to
> support non-XMPP protocols too (you never know). 

Hmm. So I could connect with my Jabber client to a JEP-0124 proxy that 
would enable me to authenticate directly with, say, an IRC server or 
SIMPLE server? So route='irc://freenode.net' or whatever? I don't think 
we ever intended that but maybe I'm missing something. ;-)

> That said, I don't have a big problem removing the "xmpp:", if that's
> what people prefer. We'd have to change existing implementations...
> 
> Perhaps we could simply define the format within the JEP and not call it
> a URI?
> "xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]

Well, let's think some more about the possible use cases. If we really 
do foresee using JEP-0124 to connect to non-XMPP systems then specifying 
an xmpp: URI might be the right thing to do, but really I think this is 
the HTTP binding for XMPP not the HTTP binding for XMPP, IRC, SIP, AIM, 
MSN, and so on...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20051118/f0c8078a/attachment-0002.bin>