Erk, you got your top posting in our bottom posting. :) On 12/8/09 4:20 PM, Douglas Abbink wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 2009/12/8 Matthew A. Miller <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. > > 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. I see what you mean -- there's no easy way to determine if the other side supports the proper stream restart logic (since that was added in version 1.2 of XEP-0206), so we need to define a "version" attribute qualified by the "urn:xmpp:xbosh" namespace (or upgrade that namespace to use things like urn:xmpp:xbosh:1). I also note that "ver" in XEP-0124 is a bit ambiguous -- does it refer to the document version or the protocol version? Given that the latter is undefined, I assume that "ver" refers to the document version and that the protocol version is assumed to track the document version. That's a bit unfortunate. We're better about protocol versioning now, but that doesn't help us with older technologies. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
