[Standards] RFC 6120 vs. XEP
Ruslan N. Marchenko
me at ruff.mobi
Wed Feb 8 20:57:20 UTC 2017
On 08.02.2017 21:42, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:06:19 +0100
> "Ruslan N. Marchenko" <me at ruff.mobi> wrote:
>> RFC restricts nowhere
>> binding process to this extension
> Actually it does, Section 14.4:
14 is a namespace section, so apparently it defines namespace relevant
to the given RFC.
>> A URN sub-namespace for resource binding in the Extensible Messaging
>> and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace
>> name adheres to the format defined in [XML-REG].)
>> URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind
> Here, the word "extension" is omited, so it will be harder to juggle
> with words pretending you're making an argument ;)
I still don't see it as a requirement. Requirements are in section 7.
And here real noncompliance lays afaik just at 7.3.2, SM does not follow
this rule for obvious reason.
Although stream restart is not a big overhead and again - does not
mandate session restart.
More information about the Standards