Subject: [xmpp] Call for XMPP Agenda Items

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:47:28 -0400

All,

The XMPP WG will meet Wednesday November 11th between 1-3.  We're 
obviously going to discuss the 3 WG IDs, but we'd also like to know if 
there are others that have something they'd like to present.  If you do, 
then please let me know the title of presentation and an approximate length.

spt

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:09:28 -0600

> then please let me know the title of presentation and an approximate

I assume that Joe Hildebrand can talk about DNA:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hildebrand-dna-00

I can talk about recent updates to 3920bis and 3921bis. That might take
30 minutes for both. I will post to the list in the next week about
specific "bis" topics that we might want to cover at IETF 76.

To me, the major remaining issue is internationalized addresses. I have
reviewed the full suite of IDNAbis documents with an eye toward usage in
XMPP, but that is only one aspect of i18n since we also need to deal
with JID localparts and "resourceparts". Should we continue using
Stringprep or take the IDNAbis approach of whitelisting certain
characters? (That probably makes more sense for IDNA than for localparts
or resourceparts.) Should we use IDNA2003 or IDNA2008? And so on. We
might also want to compare our work here to the email i18n work:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/eai/

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:06:09 +0000

>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hildebrand-dna-00
+1.

>characters?
I think the answer to this question would depend on StringPrep BOF 
outcome. I was hoping to have it in Hiroshima, but it is delayed till 
the following IETF.

>(That probably makes more sense for IDNA than for localparts

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:33:23 -0600

> outcome. I was hoping to have it in Hiroshima, but it is delayed till

Perhaps the XMPP WG can identify the issues that it thinks are
important, for input to the Stringprep BoF. Given that XMPP is one of
the main users of Stringprep, such an exercise might be useful for us
and for people working on Stringprep / i18n.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:57:03 +0000

>and for people working on Stringprep / i18n.
I think this is a good idea.
As XMPP is conflicting with KRB-WG, I would like to suggest that we use 
SASL slot to discuss this. Opinions?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:31:07 -0600

> SASL slot to discuss this. Opinions?

That sounds like a productive use of the time.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/