[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Fri Jun 5 06:24:35 UTC 2015


On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org> wrote:
>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html

> The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive.

Good point, going to change it.

> None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me.

If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why
wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security
improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150605/00502b11/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list