[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0198: Stream Management

Ruslan Marchenko me at ruff.mobi
Wed Feb 12 20:16:31 UTC 2020

Am Dienstag, den 11.02.2020, 15:21 +0000 schrieb Jonas Schäfer:
> The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0198 before
> presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.
> During the Call for Experience, please answer the following
> questions:
> 1. What software has XEP-0198 implemented? Please note that the
> protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at
> least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to
> advance from Draft to Final.
Implemented in DJabberd::Plugin::SMX (GPLv1/Artistic) [1] plugin from
scratch independently.

> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
> defined in XEP-0198? If so, please describe the problems and, if
> possible, suggested solutions.

> 3. Is the text of XEP-0198 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate?
> Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
> suggestions you have for improving the text.

If the former stream is resumed and the server still has the stream for
the previously-identified session open at this time, the server SHOULD 
send a 'conflict' stream error and close that stream.

On a first reading _that stream_ rendered in my mind as resuming stream
(not active stream). I think it needs to be rephrased to say that
clearly - which one should be kept and which terminated.

Also worth explicitly saying that only routable stanzas as defined in
rfc6120 must be counted. It is mentioned in intro however rather to
stress the point the SM nonzas themselves should not be counted, not to
define the full applicable scope.

[1] - https://github.com/rufferson/DJabberd-Plugin-SMX

More information about the Standards mailing list