[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Extensible In-Band Registration
xramtsov at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 21:39:36 UTC 2017
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:26:59 -0600
Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> I don't see all those things fitting into this XEP, so we go back to
> my original position: this seems like a neat idea, but rewriting the
> XMPP handshake (or creating a new feature that just acts as a slightly
> different stream features wrapper for "all features which need user
> interaction") is out of the scope of this spec. If you're giong to do
> that, it seems like you might as well make it how the stream features
> work in general; I know you've said that SASL doesn't need user
> interaction, but it might as well be a "command" that then sets off a
> series of challenges all the same. I just don't see how this is any
> different from redefining stream-features-as-a-stream-feature.
I don't understand why we need to redefine how stream features work. My
<command-nodes/> element with a list inside is the same as <mechanism/>
element with a list of SASL methods inside. What's the difference?
Also, yes, probably the XEP you're trying to write is not needed at all
(or maybe it should be some informational best-practice XEP). What
should be improved is XEP-0050.
More information about the Standards