[Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Thu Apr 14 20:22:02 UTC 2011

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> never necessary to include the authzid? I suppose the latter approach is
>>> simpler...
>> Sure. But that was changed in version 0.0.3 and I don't think we can
>> "fix" that now nor is there a compelling reason.
> No, there is no compelling need -- such flexibility might be desirable
> someday, but we don't design for someday.

We can still be liberal in what we accept and deal with empty 
authorization ids today.

>> I have no objections to adding a fallback to the stream's in s2s step 11
>> if the authorization id is empty. IIRC some servers already do that.
> What is the nature of the fallback?

I think it gets obvious if you add a 'from' after "stream's" :-/
The stream's 'from' attribute is used instead of the (empty) 
authorization id. Dave?

More information about the Standards mailing list