On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: [...]
>> For example, given an input URI of >> "sip:alice:[email protected];transport=tcp?subject=project%20x&priority=urgent", >> the client derives the service type "sip" from the scheme, and the >> domain name "example.net" from the authority component. > > Looks good. I love gnarly URIs. :) > See my comment to Jeff. A simpler URI would be good enough, as long as its got _something_ beyond just the scheme and authority parts. And we should be careful with transport=tcp lest someone ask why we are connecting via TLS. How about just "sips:[email protected]"? (the "sips" scheme both shows that we intend to use TLS, and illustrates how a user input scheme of "sips" might result in a reference id scheme of "sip".) >> Also, given an >> input URI of "im:[email protected]", the derived service type is "sip" >> (since the "im" scheme is defined as an abstract scheme in the SIP >> context by [SIP-IM] (RFC 3428)), and the domain name is again >> "example.net". > > Well, the im: and pres: URIs can result in a derived service type of > "xmpp", too. It depends on what a service has deployed... > If my SIP client derives an XMPP service, it will violate the principle of least surprise :-) But on reflection, I think the "im" example may delve to far into the esoteric even for me. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3860 > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels/im-srv-labels.xhtml > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
