OK, I accept this, but in this case the text in the I-D should probably be worded slightly different:
> > The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of > > constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by > > adopting the message framing provided by WebSocket to delineate the > > stream open and close headers, stanzas, and other top-level stream > > elements. ‘deviates’ IMO suggests a change to the base specification, not just an optional new binding. Regards, Dan From: Richard Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 9:59 PM To: Dave Cridland Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]; [email protected]; Jari Arkko; [email protected] Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 8 July 2014 16:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Dave, An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was written, so of course, they can do without it. Now that the binding exist, the option should be visible IMO. OK, but why is this case different to, for example, an IMAP extension, where we don't say "Updates: 3501" every time - indeed, qresync got serious push-back over the Updates there. I agree. This document does not update RFC 6120. If an implementation of RFC 6120 does not support this transport, then it will never need to know about the framing changes. If it does, then it will. The two are separate. "Updates" is not a mechanism for advertising additional features. --Richard Dave. _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
