> 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
