[Council] 77 and 78

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Jun 16 15:11:48 CDT 2003

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:00:37PM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 77:

== 78 (auth) :)

> Security considerations: this method may be used (MAY?)  I think it should
> still be possible to use this approach with 1.0, if configured in by both
> sides, but it SHOULD NOT be.

What does 1.0 mean at that point?

> Also, there are two paragraphs about plaintext here.  I like the latter one,
> except for s/If a client attempts to use the plaintext mechanism/If a client
> implements the plaintext mechanism/.

Yes, there are two paragraphs. First is about implementing the protocol
in software. Second is about actually using what is implemented. These
are two different things, no?

> 78:

== 77 (reg)

> I still don't like this: If the entity is already registered, the IQ result
> MUST contain an empty <registered/> element (indicating that the entity is
> already registered). It SHOULD NOT contain instructions and empty
> registration fields; instead, it SHOULD contain the registration information
> currently on file for the entity.
> I still think it SHOULD contain empty elements and instructions, so that I
> can change my registration information.

Ah, I didn't understand the motivation before. Well, the existing
protocol is to provide the current information, along with instructions.
Hmm. Let me look some more.


More information about the Council mailing list