[standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0020: Client Feature Negotiation

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Mar 1 16:53:18 UTC 2002


Is there possibly a middle ground here where we can use an x extension in
the other namespace for negotiation?  Similar to how x:data is used to
extend searching and registration?

--temas


----- Original Message -----
>From: "Iain Shigeoka" <iainshigeoka at yahoo.com>
To: "Jabber standards" <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0020: Client Feature Negotiation


> On 2/28/02 6:21 AM, "Peter G. Millard" <me at pgmillard.com> wrote:
>
> > Feature negotiation is the next step after finding out that a client
> > supports a specific namespace. Thus, it actually "extends" the browsing
> > aspect to find out if an endpoint supports something. The negotiation
would
>
> I'm favoring Ashvil on this.  It seems cleaner to me to browse for
> namespaces using iq:browse, then negotiate features within the desired
> namespace rather than in a separate client negotiation namespace.  I
suppose
> it depends on if you consider capabilities a separate matter from the
> service itself.
>
> If we want to go with a separate capabilities management feature then it
> makes sense to use iq:browse to locate a service in the capabilities
> database, then JEP0020 to negotiate specifics.  However my impression is
> that the current Jabber design really favors services as separate
entities.
> In this case, it would seem better to use iq:browse for service lookup,
and
> negotiate capabilities directly with the service you wish to work with...
>
> -iain
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>




More information about the Standards mailing list