[Standards] XEP-0198: Stream Management - Clarifications

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Sep 16 19:24:40 UTC 2011


On Fri Sep 16 17:58:17 2011, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> I think it shouldn't hurt if <r/> meant "I'd really like you to  
> send an
> <a/> now, please", and the other party SHOULD reply with <a/>, but  
> not
> MUST.

No, that would be bad. I do not wish to second guess why I'm not  
getting an <a/>, I just want to get one.

>  If an implementation for whatever reason sends a whole bunch of
> <r/>s at the same time, then why reply with more than one <a/>.

I don't want to optimize the protocol for poorly written  
implementations. If the other end is asking for lots of  
acknowledgements, either send them or go talk to a different peer.

Send as many <a/> as you like, but at least one per <r/> received.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list