[Standards] XEP-198 when to start counting?

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 17 17:52:36 UTC 2011


On 17 June 2011 18:40, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 6/17/11 11:37 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On 17 June 2011 18:25, Jefry Lagrange <jefry.reyes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When I test stream management with a prosody server, this happens:
>>>
>>> <!-- Out -->
>>> <enable xmlns="urn:xmpp:sm:2" resume="true" />
>>>
>>> <!-- Out -->
>>> <iq type="set" id="2">
>>> <session xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session" />
>>> </iq>
>>>
>>> <!-- In -->
>>> <enabled id='a8110118-42ec-485c-b386-85b2d12a02a1' resume='true'
>>> xmlns='urn:xmpp:sm:2'/>
>>>
>>> <!-- Out -->
>>> <r xmlns="urn:xmpp:sm:2" />
>>>
>>> <!-- In -->
>>> <iq id='2' type='result'
>>> to='jtest at thiessen.im/919aece2-21f2-4fc4-9e02-1111ac522509_'/>
>>> <r xmlns='urn:xmpp:sm:2'/>
>>>
>>> <!-- Out -->
>>> <a xmlns="urn:xmpp:sm:2" h="1" />
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The client sent an IQ stanza before it received confirmation for SM
>>> negotiation <enabled />. When should I start counting? When I send
>>> <enable /> or when I receive <enabled />?
>>>
>>
>> When you send <enable/>, if you're going to send stanzas before you
>> receive <enabled/>.
>>
>> The XEP says this:
>>
>> "
>> The value of 'h' starts at zero at the point stream management is
>> enabled or requested to be enabled, is incremented to one for the
>> first stanza handled, and is incremented by one again with each
>> subsequent stanza handled.
>> "
>>
>> ...which isn't too decisive, to say the least :)
>
> Seems clear to me. Feel free to propose revised text.
>

I was about to, but then noticed that actually just below the whole
thing is already clarified in a note. So perhaps after "requested to
be enabled" simply insert "(see note below)" - the box clarifies both
the client and server side of the proceedings.

Jefry - does the note in the XEP (the box just before example 6) leave
you with any question about what the correct behaviour is? It seems to
answer your question perfectly.

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list