[Standards] [Fwd: Re: Namespace well-formedness and RFC3920bis backwards compatibility]
dave at cridland.net
Fri Sep 19 05:58:14 CDT 2008
On Fri Sep 19 11:20:18 2008, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>
> > Instead, stanzas which are not namespace well formed SHOULD be
> rejected by
> > the recipient [with a stanza error], and SHOULD NOT cause a
> disconnect in
> > clients [ie, don't let this be a DOS]. Clients MUST NOT generate
> XML which
> > is not namespace well formed [clients have no excuse for this
> > servers SHOULD NOT forward such XML and MUST NOT generate it
> [newly minted
> > XML won't have this problem]. Servers MAY disconnect clients
> which generate
> > bad XMLNS [potential DOS], however this does not apply to peer
> I would say that this will not help at all (at least if we talk
> ejabberd). Ejabberd
> authors will just say that since there's no "MUST" which ejabberd
> violates then it
> is perfectly XMPP compliant. So, there's no any incentive to fix
> the bug.
I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.
If mandating perfectly namespace well-formed XML under all
circumstances is so difficult, then we shouldn't be doing so.
Moreover, clients need to cope with bad XMLNS, because it exists now
and is a real, genuine, problem that won't go away whether or not
ejabberd, or M-Link, or however many other servers comply with a
"namespace well-formed" MUST in the future.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards