On 8 July 2014 10:06, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jari, > > The authors actually responded - see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html. > > They pushed back on my #1 - I am still not convinced by their argument (as > the protocol does change by adding a different mapping) but I would not > block the document for this purpose. > The proposed changes for the rest are fine. > I genuinely don't understand why adding an additional binding should require an Updates. I understand "Updates" to be an indicator that implementors of (in this case) RFC 6120 would need to read this document as well, and I don't believe that to be the case. In particular, implementors of RFC 6120 don't need to care about this document unless they *also* want to do XMPP over Websockets, in the same way that implementors of Websockets don't need to care about this document unless they *also* want to send XMPP over them. Of course, readers of this document are required to read both RFC 6120 and the Websockets spec, but that's what Normative References are for. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
