Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 12:03 06-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > 1 - why two drafts instead of one ?
>
> Because some people consider IM and presence to be fully separable
> features, which is why we have both the pres: and im: URI schemes (as
> defined in RFCs 3859 and 3860 respectively). See also RFC 2779.

I read draft-saintandre-header-im-00.  I must have missed 
draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.

I hope there's not going to be a new header each time there's a new 
feature. :-)


> > 9 - Likewise RFC 3860.  I hope you're not trying to
> >     move vCards piecemeal into mail header fields.
>
> By no means. I am trying to address feedback received during the Last
> Call on draft-saintandre-jabberid. Part of that feedback raised the
> issue of working on a more generic solution that is not tied to a
> specific instant messaging and presence technology (in this case, XMPP).
> These I-Ds are my good-faith attempt at fulfilling my promise to work on
> a more generic solution.

Could we have only one I-D which is extensible to encompass all these 
schemes?  I assume that will be draft-saintandre-header-pres-01.

BTW, the Author's address in your draft seems incomplete.

Regards,
-sm 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf