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 § 8:
Three kinds of XML stanza are defined for the 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces: <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>.
Which seems somewhat restrictive. 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). I guess I would expect 0360 to (re?)define stanza, so it can define what nonza isn't.
§ 2 Nonza: A Nonza is every XML element found at the XMPP stream's top level which is not a Stanza. The top level of an XMPP stream is the child XML level beneath the last <stream> opening tag as defined in RFC 6120 § 4.2. "Opening a Stream", i.e. at depth=1 of the stream. Informal definition: A XMPP stream element is a Nonza, if its element name is not 'message', 'iq' or 'presence'.
This seems to be missing a namespace definition. Since Nonza here is defined by what it isn't, we might as well define Stanza properly. Maybe https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6120#section-4.8.2 "Content Namespace" can be worth adding somewhere in there?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?
N/A
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
Nothing to add to the other thread started by peter.
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
I am not sure why we're talking about resource binding, but I haven't really concerned myself with stream-level features much.. Maybe some explanation here would help. RFC 6120 § 7. mentioned in 0360 § 4. confusingly talks about stanza in this case too.