[jdev] Re: Problem Connecting to GoogleTalk using my custom client
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Tue Oct 25 14:41:10 CDT 2005
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:18:44 +0200, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>> Of course we can say: ah well, who cares wether you can call something
>> XMPP compliant or not. But I think the fact this discussion was started
>> after what ralphm said, shows how unreasonable this kind of language in
>> the RFC is.
> Some of that stuff is in there to make the security mafia happy, which
> you have to do in order to get published as an RFC (it's called
> "cross-area review"). That was part of the trade-off of standardization
> through the IETF.
They actually complained? Or was the inclusion of DIGEST-MD5 "pre-emptive"?
> Also, must-implement is different from must-deploy.
And different from "Mandatory-to-Implement Technologies" as the RFC calls
it? In that case, neither we nor they have to worry that Google Talk is
"not fully compliant with RFC 3920." anymore. Still I think it's confusing
right now, after all if even Ralph makes such a suggestion on the list..
might be something to think on for rfc3920bis.
> And as noted, we can attempt to fix this stuff in rfc3920bis.
I can hardly image anyone in the security maffia being happy with
DIGEST-MD5 over the past 5 years. Maybe they're not as "maffia" as I
More information about the JDev