[Standards] XEP-198 when to start counting?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Jun 17 17:57:37 UTC 2011


On 6/17/11 11:52 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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.

That's why we added it. :)

Now, why v1.3rc2 is published on the website already before it has been
approved by the XMPP Council is another question...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20110617/cd9f9a85/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list