[Standards-JIG] rfc3920bis, RC4: Version Number Change?
hildjj at gmail.com
Thu Oct 12 21:59:30 UTC 2006
Should we at least suggest to implementors somewhere that this is a
no-op, to preserve compatibility with existing 1.0 clients? I know
of at least one that would probably get confused if there was no
session tag in the last stream:features.
On Oct 11, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Justin Karneges wrote:
>> I'd like to add that if we do want some minimal feature support
>> for XMPP-IM,
>> then let it be inside XMPP-IM. For example, the privacy feature
>> could be
>> noted in the IM sessions handshake. Or we could put an XMPP-IM
>> version in
>> the IM sessions stream feature. E.g.:
>> <bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/>
>> <session xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session'
> Sessions are gone, we removed them because we discovered that they
> unecessary. Just do resource binding and then send presence, that's
> enough of a session for most people. :-)
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Standards