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

Joe Hildebrand 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.:
>>
>>   <stream:features>
>>     <bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/>
>>     <session xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session'  
>> version='1.1'/>
>>   </stream:features>
>
> Sessions are gone, we removed them because we discovered that they  
> were
> unecessary. Just do resource binding and then send presence, that's
> enough of a session for most people. :-)
>
> Peter
>
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
>




More information about the Standards mailing list