11 Mar
2024
11 Mar
'24
3:17 a.m.
------ Original Message ------
From "Daniel Gultsch" <daniel(a)gultsch.de>
To standards(a)xmpp.org
Date 11/03/2024 09:14:36
Subject [Standards] Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0360 (Nonzas (are not Stanzas))
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 4:18 PM Daniel Gultsch
<daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
I'm largely with Daniel on this.
/K
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0360.
Title: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
Abstract:
This specification defines the term "Nonza", describing every top
level stream element that is not a Stanza.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0360.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-03-25.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
I’m honestly not convinced that the problem the XEP introduces "This
leads to the unfortunate situation where some submitted XEPs erroneous
refer to non-Stanza top level stream elements as 'Stanzas'." exists.
Or if introducing a new term fixes the issue. We have terminology
("element", "stream element") for that. I briefly checked with some
XEPs (Bind 2, SM, CSI) and they all seem to be fine without this new
term.
Also - and this is probably something that might have changed since
this XEP was first introduced - we don’t have that many XEPs that use
custom stream elements after bind (after routing is enabled). CSI and
SM seem to be the only major one. We didn’t see an influx in them.
And XEPs like Bind2 an SASL2 are fairly normal in their usage of
stream elements I would say.
2. Does the specification solve the problem
stated in the introduction
and requirements?
I guess. But my argument is mostly that the problem isn’t an actual problem.
3. Do you plan to implement this specification
in your code? If not,
why not?
No. If I were to write a new XEP I would rather not use the word nonza.
4. Do you have any security concerns related to
this specification?
No
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly
written?
Yes.