> 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". And the idea was that, a JEP-0124 proxy should also be able to support non-XMPP protocols too (you never know). The Introduction says: "the protocol is extensible and could be used to implement any bidirectional stream of XML stanzas." 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 ] - Ian
