![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
You may have missed the point of the Jabber-ID header, which we[...]
defined so that the community of Jabber users could experiment
with this usage.Thanks for the feedback -- I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to pursue these I-Ds further (which I rather doubt).
IMO the Jabber-ID header field makes sense, it has a modern syntax, and might be better than attaching a complete vCard to a message:
Apparently the optional "profile" associated with a JID is more or less the same as a vCard. The Last Called Jabber-ID draft (you have already fixed a minor FWS issue) only needs IESG approval and an RFC number. Whatever backchamber conspiracy "persuaded" you to "withdraw" it - but if it was the "DEA directorate" I'll scream.
Peter
-- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf-message-headers mailing list Ietf-message-headers at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers