-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the review. Comments inline.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Background for those who may be unaware of GenART: > > GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF. > We advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by > providing more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents > that come up for final decision in IESG telechat. I was selected > as the GenART member to review this document. Below is my review, > which was written specifically with an eye to the GenART process, but > since I believe that it will be useful to have these comments more > widely distributed, others outside the GenART group are included. > > This review was done as part of IETF Last Call. > > Review criteria: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the > area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes > would make it so?" > > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described > in the review. > > Section 2.5 contains the following note: > > (Note: In pursuit of interoperability, it may be helpful to maintain > a registry of query types and perhaps even of keys for use in XMPP > query components. Given that such values will most likely be > specific to particular applications of XMPP rather than core to XMPP > itself, it seems reasonable that such a registry, if created, would > be maintained by the Jabber Registrar function of the Jabber Software > Foundation as described in [JEP-0053], rather than by the IANA. A > proposal for creating such a registry can be found in [JEP-0147].) > > Given the importance of interoperability to the IETF, IESG approval of this > draft should probably be delayed until that registry is functional so that > the draft can document registration requirements for query components. > This problem is ironically caused by XMPP's success in being used by > multiple independent applications (e.g., list in Section 2.1), requiring > a registry like this to prevent collisions among their use of URIs/IRIs. That seems sensible. The document that describes the proposed registry will need to be advanced within the Jabber Software Foundation's standards process in order to authorize creation of the registry. That can probably be done within a month or so, in particular following a Last Call within that process and voting by the Jabber Council as described at <http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0001.html>. > Nit - In Section 3.6 add "RFC " before "XXXX" and add an RFC Editor note > to tell the RFC Editor to replace "XXXX" with the number of the published > RFC and delete the note. The xml2rfc tool outputs "XXXX" for the &rfc.number; entity so I'll hand-edit the TXT output and add the note. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEEgiNNF1RSzyt3NURAoW5AKC/Q2fKMMw8uGbIU7gHJTQW7rNfFgCgtqD6 ljYGloVYKf8C4J9CSBtmrjw= =dB7h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
