[Standards-JIG] rfc3920bis, RC4: Version Number Change?
jd.conley at coversant.net
Thu Oct 12 22:01:57 UTC 2006
Yeah, our current client side stuff would break if that wasn't present.
In fact it's explicitly waiting for that feature before binding a
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org [mailto:standards-jig-
> bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: Jabber protocol discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] rfc3920bis, RC4: Version Number Change?
> 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