[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-04-10]

[Mridul Muralidharan]

About the node in disco query ...

Actually I have a query regarding iq.
In some xep's (& rfcs), the iq response has just the type & id (<iq 
type="error|result" id="id1" />).
Some others include the namespace.
While in yet others (usually in context of error), the request query is 
also included.

Some api's/clients/servers refuse to behave properly if the namespace is 
not in the iq response. While some others do not generate namespace in 
cases.
Shouldn't clients/servers keep track of iq's based on from-to-id tuple ? 
Isn't that not enough ? Or is this documented as a MUST somewhere and I 
am missing something ?

Regards,
Mridul

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:23:14 -0600
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> To: council at xmpp.org
> Subject: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-04-10
> 
> Results of the XMPP Council meeting held 2007-04-10...
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> http://www.jabber.org/council/meetings/agendas/2007-04-10.html
> 
> Log:
> 
> http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/council@conference.jabber.org/2007-04-10.html 
> 
> 
> 0. Roll Call
> 
> All Council members (Ralph Meijer, Chris Mullins, Ian Paterson, Peter
> Saint-Andre, Kevin Smith) in attendance. Quorum achieved.
> 
> 1. XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging
> 
> Still waiting for more implementor feedback.
> 
> 2. XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities
> 
> Version 1.3 approved.
> 
> 3. XEP-0030: Service Discovery
> 
> Add the following sentence?
> 
> "If the request included a 'node' attribute, the response MUST mirror
> the specified 'node' attribute to ensure coherence between the request
> and the response."
> 
> Consensus to add sentence with change of MUST to SHOULD.
> 
> 4. XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat
> 
> Agreement to change delayed delivery reference from XEP-0091 to XEP-0203
> with proviso to send both formats until XEP-0091 is changed from
> Deprecated to Obsolete (most likely 2008-01-01).
> 
> 5. Registry of Well-Known Service Discovery Nodes
> 
> No objections to generalizing to cover both service discovery and
> publish-subscribe.
> 
> 6. e2e
> 
> No discussion, Ian and Peter to discuss on Thursday.
> 
> 7. ProtoXEP: Bootstrapping Implementation of Jingle
> 
> No objections to accepting version 0.0.2 as a XEP.
> 
> 8. ProtoXEP: STUN Server Discovery for Jingle
> 
> Chris argued for advertising this information at a well-known
> publish-subscribe node rather than retrieving it with a specialized IQ
> protocol. Peter to revise and resubmit after list discussion.
> 
> 9. ProtoXEP: File Repository and Sharing
> 
> Accept version 0.0.3 as a XEP?
> 
> No consensus to publish. Peter to seek decision at next meeting.
> 
> 10. ProtoXEP: Metacontacts
> 
> No objections to accepting version 0.0.1 as a XEP.
> 
> 11. ProtoXEP: Discovery and Integration of XMPP Services
> 
> Not discussed. Peter to seek decision at next meeting.
> 
> 12. Pubsub/PEP/private
> 
> Some discussion, decision to be made at next meeting.
> 
> 13. Next meeting scheduled for April 20.
> 
> /psa
>