Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0231 (Bits of Binary)

[Johansson Olle E]

15 aug 2008 kl. 23.45 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:

Pavel Simerda wrote:

Btw, what I didn't know before... I have looked into the CID/MID rfc
and there's nothing about requiring the at-sign. It's only written in

But then "xmpp.sha1.da39aee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd807099" (or
similar syntax) is just as conforming as any other syntax.
The interesting point of the RFC is that the CIDs must be globally
unique but it apparently leaves it for the implementors to be clever
enough not to have the same idea.
It depends if you want to break common practice.

the common practice sections but there they use. And they do use local hstnames, not shared strings.

I don't think that's right. Looking at RFC 2111 we find:

content-id    = url-addr-spec

and

url-addr-spec = addr-spec  ; URL encoding of RFC 822 addr-spec

Then consulting RFC 822 we find:

addr-spec     =  local-part "@" domain

However, I think we don't have to use a UUID for the local-part, we could use a hash.

The hostname is just useless for the XMPP purposes. But if we keep it
for common practice, I'd suggest a constant one then (as it's useless
anyway).

I don't see a use for it now, but that doesn't mean it's useless. However, I'm OK with hardcoding it to bob.xmpp.org or something.

/O

Using domain or host here is like the recommendation to use it as part of the call ID or realm in SIP. Using your own domain ensures a unique namespace for you. Using a hostname ensures a unique namespace for your host. In both these cases, it doesn't have any other meaning - it's never parsed or resolved. It's just a way to ensure uniqueness in a simple way.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature