Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core
draft-ietf-xmpp-core-24
Yes
(Ted Hardie)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Thomas Narten)
Abstain
(Jon Peterson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 24 and is now closed.
Ned Freed Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2004-01-08)
Unknown
These are both generally excellent specifications; clear, easy to follow, and the unusually large number of examples it contains makes it easy to see how things are supposed to work. That said, I have a number of comments: The diagrams in sections 2.1, 4.1, 8.2, etc. aren't correctly aligned in the HTML version; they are fine in the text version. (I guess this doesn't matter since the RFC Editor only deals in the text version but I thought I'd mention it.) The term "TCP sockect" used in sections 2.3, 2.5, 4.1 and probably elsewhere seems unnecessarily UNIX-y; how about "TCP connection" instead? (I looked at a bunch of other RFCs and the general trend seems to be to use the term "TCP socket" when talking about network socket APIs.) Section 4.2 requires that ids be nonrepeating and unpredictable. Perhaps an informative reference to RFC 1750 would be appropriate? Section 4.6.2: It might be worthwhile to mention that the xml:lang element could be used to select an appropriate language for <text/> clauses in <error/>s. Section 5.3 and 5.4: "Step 5: Server informs client to proceed:" -> "Step 5: Server informs client that it is OK to proceed:" This document makes frequent use of the capitalized term "NOT REQUIRED". This is not one of the terms RFC 2119 defines. I believe these are equivalent to MAY or OPTIONAL and the text should be modified accordingly. Alternately, a sentence saying how "NOT REQUIRED" is to be interpreted could be added to section 1.2.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-08)
Unknown
Note that this draft has xmpp-im-20 appended to it within the same file. My noob is just to xmpp-core.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-12-18)
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-12-17)
Unknown
Section 1.3 should be deleted prior to publication. In section 5.1, the 7th numbered item is an introductory statement for the two cases listed in the 8th numbered item. They should all be one numbered item. In section 5.3, Step 7 (alt), the text talks about 'Sever2'. Yet, the scenario involves on client and one server. In section 9.2.3, the 2nd numbered item is an introductory statement for the cases listed in the 3rd numbered item. They should all be one numbered item. An informative reference to RFC 3280 is desirable. It will help someone trying to deal with certification path validation for TLS.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown