On 3/10/24 11:19 AM, Maxime Buquet wrote:
On 2024/03/10, Daniel Gultsch 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?
Yes. The abstract and introduction seem to cover this well.
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?
From RFC 6120 ยง 8:
Three kinds of XML stanza are defined for the 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces: <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>.
Which seems somewhat restrictive.
I'd say those restrictions were intentional at the time. Indeed, IIRC the original jabberd server just checked for 'm', 'p', or 'i' as the first character of the stanza!
It also doesn't take into account 0114 (Component) which I guess was written later? and 0114 itself does little effort at including itself in this definition (it uses the word as if it was already defined in this context).
XEP-0114 defines two namespaces, jabber:component:accept and jabber:component:connect, and treats top-level elements in those namespaces as stanzas (although the handshake element is really a nonza in those namespaces). So it's kind of a special exception. We weren't necessarily as careful about things in the early days (the Jabber component protocol predates our work at the IETF but we didn't document it right away, perhaps because so many components used the internal component protocol in jabberd).
I guess I would expect 0360 to (re?)define stanza, so it can define what nonza isn't.
Maybe. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to nail this down precisely, but I suppose it can't hurt to try. ;-) Peter