SM wrote:
At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
distinct domains of functionality, which just happen to often be
implemented and deployed in the same systems or services.
You are viewing the im: scheme and the pres: scheme from the point of
view of their RFCs which is different from the functionality offered
by the mail header. In a previous email, you mentioned a generic
solution. My point is that it is better to have a generic mail header
to encompass pres:, im: and other schemes that would use URIs in such
a manner.
+1. I don't see why 2 nearly identical header fields are needed.
I also don't see any particular reason for prohibiting direct use of
XMPP or SIP URIs here. There is no need in extra resolution step if an
email author only supports one type of IM application.
Regarding the recommended syntax: it is worth considering syntax used by
List-Archive/List-Unsubscribe/... (RFC 2369) header fields, which are
surrounded by '<' and '>', e.g.:
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
We could have, for example, the following header:
Contact-ID: pres:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; im:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The MUA would process the header to determine whether there is a
presence URI or IM URI and take appropriate action.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
