[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
flo at geekplace.eu
Fri Jun 5 07:43:45 UTC 2015
On 05.06.2015 09:36, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 5 June 2015 at 07:24, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu
> <mailto:flo at geekplace.eu>> wrote:
> On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org <mailto: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.
> I think the definition of a stanza is a routed top-level element, so an
> extension that negotiated "routed Nonzas" is actually negotiating a new
> stanza type. My reading of RFC 6120 seems to leave room for negotiating
> new stanzas (and moreover, they needn't have the common attributes of §8.1).
I don't think so. It appears to me that Stanzas are very well defined in
RFC 6120. See below.
> However, I don't think that RFC 6120 actually defines what a stanza
Stanzas ... are specified in RFC 6120  § 4.1 "Stream Fundamentals"
and § 8. "XML Stanzas"
> 3) Some convenient term of art for first child elements of the stream -
> ie, the collective term for both Stanzas and Nonzas.
Top-level stream element?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards