On Montag, 11. März 2024 10:14:36 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote:
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. […] 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.
The issue I have with the "stream element" terminology is that it may also include Stanzas. Sometimes, we need to talk about things which are stream elements, but not Stanzas. Having an agreed-upon word for that is useful, IMO.
I briefly checked with some XEPs (Bind 2, SM, CSI) and they all seem to be fine without this new term.
Actually, looking at Stream Management (XEP-0198), I think it benefits from a clear definition of what a Stanza even is. RFC 6120 doesn't clearly state whether *only* the elements defined by RFC 6120 are stanzas. The text is at least ambiguous. To quote the introduction of RFC 6120 section 8:
Three kinds of XML stanza are defined for the 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces: <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>. In addition, there are five common attributes for these stanza types. These common attributes, as well as the basic semantics of the three stanza types, are defined in this specification; more detailed information regarding the syntax of XML stanzas for instant messaging and presence applications is provided in [XMPP-IM], and for other applications in the relevant XMPP extension specifications.
(In addition to that, note the comments by pep in regards to XEP-0114.) To me, it's not fully clear that this is the complete definition of the word Stanza. And Stream Management only uses that term, which means that depending on your interpretation of RFC 6120, you may be counting Nonzas, such as CSI changes. Even if we consider Nonzas worth counting (I'm not sure they are, and there's certainly a loop to avoid with <r/> / <a/> in '198), that should be spelled out clearly.
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.
True. Nontheless worth documenting, don't you think? kind regards, Jonas