[Standards] RFC 6120 vs. XEP

Evgeny Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 08:53:10 UTC 2017


Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:19:17 +0000
Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> Right, I understand, and largely agree. I might scribble a draft to
> address this, by clarifying what we really meant here.

I see also two issues here ;)

1. RFC6120, section 7.1 says:

> After a client authenticates with a server, it MUST bind a specific
> resource to the stream so that the server can properly address the
> client.

Thus, a client is unable to resume a session in any case.

2. While almost everybody here argued that "resource binding" is any
binding mechanism, including Bind2, RFC6120 clearly defines "resource
binding":

Section 7.3.1:

> The parties to a stream MUST consider resource binding as mandatory-
> to-negotiate.

And section 7.1 defines:

> The XML namespace name for the resource binding extension is
> 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'.

In my book, "resource binding" is exactly something within
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind' namespace, unambiguously.


More information about the Standards mailing list