[Standards] RFC 6120 vs. XEP

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Feb 7 14:40:33 UTC 2017


On 2/7/17 6:04 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On 07-02-17 13:41, Marvin Gülker wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:46:58PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> RFC 6120 author here. :-)
>>
>> Great! :-)
>>
>>> Note that the order of features matters. In the Bind2 proposal, the
>>> order is
>>> this:
>>
>> I have to disagree. RFC 6120, section 4.3.2 says this, though it is
>> marked as an Implementation Note:
>>
>>> Implementation Note: The order of child elements contained in any
>>> given <features/> element is not significant.
>>
>> Thus, I'm not really sure whether I agree with your understanding of RFC
>> 6120's text.
>
> I don't see why this is a debate at all. The order isn't even relevant.
> A client that understands Bind2 can simply see the feature appearing
> next to the RFC 6120 one, and choose to negotiate it instead of that.
>
> A protocol is an agreement on how to do things. The agreement here is to
> bind a resource *instead of the original way*. If the server advertises
> it and the client uses it, you're done.
>

Yes. Sorry about the error regarding 6120 rules - I should know them by 
heart. :-)


More information about the Standards mailing list