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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Aug 21 19:39:32 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/21/13 1:21 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Am 21.08.2013 21:07, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: [...]
>>>> This = mid-session stream feature negotiation?
>>> 
>>> Yes. Basically I would expect all stream feature negotiation
>>> to happen immediately in response to <stream:features/>. Not
>>> after doing something else (like dialback).
>> 
>> Well, we can't negotiate everything at once. :-) So you might 
>> negotiate Feature1 and then Feature2.
> 
> Right, but are there cases where you feature1 doesn't require a
> stream restart? If there are such cases, shouldn't you negotiate
> them in a single step? Practically, I don't think it matters. We
> would have run into that problem otherwise. Let's just fix 0170.

I don't think we've ever clearly thought about that kind of scenario.

>> And dialback is weird because it predates the whole stream
>> features framework.
> 
> yes. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to kill it last year :-/

Hey, it's useful. If we didn't re-use dialback for signaling, we'd
need to invent something very much like it...

>>> I do not think that the receiving server would enforce such a
>>> rule however. And we have just removed two features that would
>>> have required a stream restart, which is certainly a bad idea 
>>> mid-session, so no objection from me.
>> 
>> I definitely agree about mid-session feature negotiation and
>> stream restarts.
> 
> Great.
> 
>>> [...]
>>>>> http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#streams-negotiation-flowchart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> 
doesn't return from DONE
>>>> 
>>>> Erratum reports are always welcome. ;-)
>>> 
>>> No, I think that the flowchart makes sense. We might want to
>>> keep this discussion in mind for 6120bis though.
>> 
>> Agreed! Not that I'm looking forward to that work (although I
>> think the eventual diff will be relatively small -- certainly a
>> lot smaller than the changes between 3920 and 6120).
> 
> can we make it a STD then? It's a pity xmpp isn't considered under
> the 2-step process.

Unfortunately, that depends on the address / internationalization
stuff. Thus (in part) the push to finish 6122bis and PRECIS.

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=fKnE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list