[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0220 (Server Dialback)

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Fri Nov 19 14:20:39 UTC 2010


David Richards wrote:
> I would like to see the advertisement section (2.3) revised to be more
> prescriptive about how to use the two forms.  It seems to me that an XMPP
> 1.0 stream should only advertise with the old dialback namespace method on
> the initial stream element of the negotiation in case it's a 0.9
> implementation.  If the response is a 0.9 stream then keep going in that
> mode.  If the response is a 1.0 stream, it should not include the old
> namespace and then must include a dialback feature.  Not including the
> feature seems wrong - 0220 only says it is preferred, not required.
> Preferably, the receiving server would not include the old namespace at all
> on the stream in response to a 1.0 stream.  It just confuses matters.  And
> on stream restarts, the old ns should not be used at all by either side.

This _might_ break things with good old jabberd1. At least not including 
the dialback namespace in the stream header on a 1.0 stream failed back 
in... 2006.

> Also, why the recommendation to have dialback required and SASL optional if
> both are advertised?  I'm not sure it matters, just curious about the
> rationale.  Seems like the server would mark as required the one that it
> prefers since it doesn't make sense to do both - sort of a makeshift
> priority indicator.

I think we can just remove the <required/> and <optional/>, since that 
is no longer defined in 3920bis :-)

Thanks for the feedback!

philipp



More information about the Standards mailing list