[Standards-JIG] rfc3920bis, RC4: Version Number Change?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Oct 11 15:07:07 UTC 2006


Privacy lists don't have anything to do with XML streams, so I don't
think we need to modify the XMPP version number (remember, 3921 really
consists of XMPP extensions). If we have changed the stream restart
behavior then I think XMPP 1.1 might have been necessary, but as it is
not I see no reason to do that.

Chris Mullins wrote:
> With the removal of Privacy Lists, should we bump the stream version
> number?
> 
> <stream:stream
>        xmlns='jabber:client'
>        xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
>        xml:lang='en'
>        from='juliet at example.com'
>        to='example.com'
>        version='1.0'>
> 
> could become:
> 
> <stream:stream
>        xmlns='jabber:client'
>        xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
>        xml:lang='en'
>        from='juliet at example.com'
>        to='example.com'
>        version='1.1'>
> 
> I guess the real question is: Is this a user affecting change, or are we
> just removing something that was never used? As far as I know, there are
> a few client/server implementations out there than did have this. 
> 
> I bring this up, as I'm reviewing XEP-0191 right now. That is the
> replacement for privacy lists. Right now, it advertises a feature via
> Disco. Once we move it into the standard, there's no need for this
> feature advertisment - we can assume it's there. But to do this, we need
> to bump the version number. 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061011/a2843731/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list