[Standards] IBB revisions
stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat Feb 21 22:14:01 UTC 2009
Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2009 18:47:28 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> As promised at the XMPP Summit, I've been working on some revisions to
>> XEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams). The changes consist of clarifying packet
>> processing and error handling, adding more examples, recommending IQs
>> over messages, correcting the schemas, etc. You can review the changes
>> in process here:
> Nice modernization. :)
> There's no explanation about how to use <message>. It looks like the example
> usage was removed.
Yes, I think we at least need to document that, even if we don't
encourage it. I'll add it back, perhaps in a separate section.
> "If enabled by the application that uses IBB, the parties MAY negotiate
> multiple SessionIDs for the same bytestream, however such methods are out of
> scope for this specification." Would these really be multiple sessionIDs for
> the same bytestream, or simply multiple bytestreams? I get that this text is
> to allow/warn for XEP-261, but I'm not sure if it is right or needed.
Hmm. If we consider a bytestream to be defined as a serious of data
packets that all use the same sid, then I think these would in fact be
separate bytestreams. Will fix.
> Also, some typos:
> "Because IBB provides a generic bytestream, so its usage is open-ended."
> "(which SHOULD math the NMTOKEN datatype)"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards