Although XEP-0206 extends XEP-0124, the versions of the 2 XEPs do not track together. For example, XEP-0206 is currently at version 1.2. If there was a change to 206 that bumped it to version 1.3 (that changed protocol), there is no way for clients and servers to negotiate which version of 206 to support based on the 124 version number (currently 1.8 I think).
Thus, I believe Mr. Miller is suggesting a version number for XEP-206, so that clients and servers can determine which bits of these two XEPs each supports using different version numbers. Douglas Abbink On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/12/8 Matthew A. Miller <[email protected]>: > > Today, XEP-0124 includes a way to report the highest supported version, > but XEP-0206 (XMPP over BOSH for the uninitiated) does not. > > Supported version of what? XMPP or BOSH? > > > We're finding this problematic in implementing client- and server-side, > since it's not clear when a stream restart should or should not be sent. > The current version of the spec says MUST, yet this change came after draft > acceptance, so any implementation against previous versions (which were > SHOULDs) may not properly support this. > > > > I propose that we enhance XEP-0206 to include an xmpp:ver or xmpp:rev to > indicate the highest version/revision of support, similar to XEP-0124. > > > > It already includes an xmpp:version attribute, equivalent to the > 'version' attribute defined in RFC3920. > > If you mean the BOSH version then yes, this does seem absent from 206, > but note that 206 *extends* 124, which does define a 'version' > attribute in the session creation/response. This is a part of the BOSH > protocol, and should be there whether using 124 with some other > protocol, or with XMPP (as defined in 206). > > Matthew. >
