[OASIS Issue Tracker] (MQTT-203) MQTT URI Scheme

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-203?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=59267#comment-59267 ] 

Nick O'Leary commented on MQTT-203:
-----------------------------------

I agree that username/password is less useful in a strict URI scheme, and gets more tricky when other authentication schemes are considered.

I disagree that port does not belong. I think the use of SRV records does not preclude permitting the port to be provided in a URI - it is an optional field. If you want the client to use SRV records, don't specify a port. But don't force a client to have to deal with SRV records because we couldn't specify the port in the URI.





> MQTT URI Scheme
> ---------------
>
>                 Key: MQTT-203
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-203
>             Project: OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: futures
>            Reporter: Nick O'Leary
>            Priority: Minor
>
> There have been a number of discussions in the community on how to specify a broker's connection details in a uri.
> The result of the community discussion is captured here - https://github.com/mqtt/mqtt.github.io/wiki/URI-Scheme
> In summary, the following uri format is proposed:
>     mqtt://[username][:password]@host.domain[:port][?clientid=clientid]
> The uri scheme could alternative be 'mqtts' to specify a secure TLS connection should be used.
> Other connection-time options (clean session etc) could also be expressed as query parameters.
> A path portion of the uri could be used to specify a specific topic.
> This JIRA can be addressed by way of Committee Note, rather than as an addition to the spec itsef.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)