------ Original Message ------ From "Daniel Gultsch" <daniel@gultsch.de> To standards@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@gultsch.de> wrote:
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@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. I'm largely with Daniel on this.
/K