Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format
draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 23 and is now closed.

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Barry Leiba Yes

Comment (2015-06-09 for -23)
No email
send info
I would make the RFC 6365 reference normative.

The ABNF definition for localpart would benefit from citing [draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis] by "UsernameCaseMapped profile".  Similarly for "OpaqueString profile" in the definition of "resourcepart".  (And, by the way, I wouldn't put quotation marks around the profile names.)

The first paragraph of Section 3.2 defines a particular parsing order, which will affect a JID such as in example 15, way down below.  I think it's worth explicitly saying that here, to reduce the likelihood that such JIDs might be mis-parsed.  You do mention it in the note explaining example 15, but it'd be useful to highlight it here.

In Section 3.3.1, I find the "i.e."s to be distracting clutter, and mildly recommend rendering those lines like this:
 
      U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK): "
      U+0026 (AMPERSAND): &

In example 21, it might be more fun to use PILE OF POO (U+1F4A9) instead.  Or maybe not...

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-11 for -23)
No email
send info
Thanks for this operation-related sentence, based on Dan Romascanu's review:
   Because it is
   possible that previously-valid JIDs might no longer be valid (or
   previously-invalid JIDs might now be valid), operators of XMPP
   services are advised to perform careful testing before migrating
   accounts and other data (see Section 6.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-precis-saslprepbis] for guidance).

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2015-06-08 for -23)
No email
send info
= Section 6.1 =
"Because this document obsoletes RFC 6122,
   which registered the "Nodeprep" and "Resourceprep" profiles, IANA is
   requested at the least to mark those profiles as not current
   (preferably with a pointer to this document)."

"At the least" implies that IANA may take some further action at its own discretion, which doesn't seem right. I would suggest deleting that phrase.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-10 for -23)
No email
send info
I have cleared my DISCUSS based on the changes proposed by PSA.  Thanks for the quick turnaround.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-06-11 for -23)
No email
send info
I see that the reference to 

   services are advised to perform careful testing before migrating
   accounts and other data (see Section 6.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-precis-saslprepbis] for guidance).

was  added due to last call discuss. I think that's good.

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection