Subject: [xmpp] 3920, 6120, and 6122

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:11:50 -0600

I've received several puzzled queries off-list about the relationship
between RFCs 3920, 6120, and 6122. "Why does 6122 update 3920 if 6120
obsoletes 3920?"

I explain the puzzle by pointing out that (1) 6120 obsoletes everything
in 3920 except the address format, (2) 6122 updates the address format
by correcting some errors in 3920, and (3) we had to do it this way
because one third of the XMPP address format has been upgraded to not
use stringprep (cf. IDNA2008) whereas the other two thirds are waiting
on completion of work by the PRECIS WG on a generic replacement for
stringprep. I further explain that both 6120 and 6122 will probably be
obsoleted by a combined spec that brings the protocol bits and the
address format back into the same document:

            3920
             /\
            /  \
           /    \
         6120   6122
           \    /
            \  /
             \/
           3920ter

/psa

---

From: Ben Schumacher <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:43:53 -0600

> address format back into the same document:

Without this glorious ASCII art, I probably would have been lost in the 
description. ;)

Thanks Peter.

Ben

---

From: Tory Patnoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:01:35 -0600

> Without this glorious ASCII art, I probably would have been lost in the

I'd also like to be reminded of where the "bis" and "ter" come from. I've
searched "Latin Ordinal Numbers" but that isn't quite right. Although
referring to 3920primus and 3921primus seems appropriate.

-- Tory

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:06:04 -0600

> referring to 3920primus and 3921primus seems appropriate.

In Latin, "bis" means twice (you can see this in the word "biscuit",
which means twice cooked).

Similarly, "ter" means thrice.

I sure hope we don't get to "quater", though. ;-)

/psa

---

From: Jehan Pagès <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:40:31 +0900

Hi,

> I sure hope we don't get to "quater", though. ;-)

In the current rate, that will be in maybe 15 years before we begin to
work on this hypothetical 3920quater. You have time to see it come.
:-D

Jehan