Subject: [Uri-review] rfc4622bis: review requested

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:20:31 -0500

As previously pointed out, there are some errors in RFC 4622. I have
attempted to correct them here:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt

No one has told me there are errors in rfc4622bis, but since Roy
Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
standards track [1] I want to make sure that my attempted corrections 
are indeed correct.

Unless I receive feedback that rfc4622bis does not fix the problems with
RFC 4622, I will assume that it does, complete another pass through the
document to ensure that it is as correct as I can make it, then request
a standards action from the appropriate AD.

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:22:48 -0500

Sorry, left off the reference...

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 01:20:31PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Roy Fielding said RFC 4622 is broken and should be removed from the
> standards track [1] 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Oct/0033.html

/psa

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:32:17 +0200

> a standards action from the appropriate AD.

(1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are.

(2) Independently of that, a diff to RFC4622 would be useful, such as in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>.

(3) 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00#section-3.8> 
says: "See Section 5 of RFC 4622, Security Considerations." There may be 
other instances like that.

(4) Front matter should say: "Obsoletes: 4622".

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:02:23 -0500

> (1) I think you should have a section stating what the changes are.

Added to my working copy.

> <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4622.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-00.txt>.

Do I-Ds generally contain such references? I have not seen them (perhaps
because they could be rather evanescent).

> other instances like that.

My working copy has things like "See Section 5 of &rfc.number;" (where
the &rfc.number; reference is to be replaced by the RFC Editor).

> (4) Front matter should say: "Obsoletes: 4622".

Ah, just discovered how to do that in xml2rfc, thanks.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:11:14 -0500

> Added to my working copy.

The text is as follows:

Appendix A.  Differences From RFC 4622

   Several errors were found in RFC 4622.  This document corrects those
   errors.  The resulting differences from RFC 4622 are as follows:

   o  Specified that the characters "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{", "|",
      and "}" are allowed in XMPP node identifiers but not allowed in
      URIs according to the sub-delims rule.
   o  Specified that the characters '"', "[", "\", "]", "^", "`", "{",
      "|", "}", '"', "<", and ">" are allowed in XMPP resource
      identifiers but not allowed in URIs according to the pchar rule.
   o  Specified that the foregoing characters must be percent-encoded
      when constructing an XMPP URI.
   o  Corrected the ABNF accordingly.
   o  Updated the examples accordingly.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:14:11 +0200

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> ...

Nope. But it's useful to get people reviewing stuff. Mentioning the link 
over here is sufficient.

> the &rfc.number; reference is to be replaced by the RFC Editor).

Ah, xml2rfc black magic, to be avoided. It's not XML.

As it's a some-document reference, why mention the document name at all?

>  ...

Best regards, Julian