[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Ben Schumacher ben.schumacher at webex.com
Thu Feb 17 22:05:19 UTC 2011


Peter earlier mentioned that RFC3920bis refers to RFC5952 which 
recommends using square brackets around an IPv6 address: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-4.9.3.19

This is what I was suggesting as well. I think the host:port notation is 
quite common and [IPv6]:port will be, as well, in an IPv6 world.

Cheers,
Ben

On 2/17/11 2:57 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Was it going to be more clear what to do with port info on the location
> element?
>
>
> On 2/17/11 11:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<stpeter at stpeter.im>  wrote:
>
>> <bump/>
>>
>> Any feedback or objections?
>>
>> On 2/11/11 1:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> OK folks, I've made a first attempt at updating the spec, including
>>> Dave's patch. The results are here:
>>>
>>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.2.html
>>>
>>> Please review and comment.
>>>
>>> (IMHO the document doesn't provide a super-clear explanation of what the
>>> protocol does and why it matters -- I'll try to add a paragraph like
>>> that to the introduction.)
>>>
>>> /psa
>>>
>>> On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the
>>>> status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly
>>>> come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198.
>>>>
>>>> Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion
>>>> thread about this spec:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html
>>>>
>>>> I see two main points...
>>>>
>>>> 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation
>>>> feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be
>>>> applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from
>>>> my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule
>>>> (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example,
>>>> Matthew Wild wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based
>>>>     algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout
>>>>     handshake...
>>>>
>>>> IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course
>>>> here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless
>>>> I'm missing something obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198?
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>




More information about the Standards mailing list