Re: [jdev] Privacy feature

[Joe Hildebrand]

Keep in mind that the MUST features in the RFC's are mandatory-to- implement, not mandatory-to-deploy. It's perfectly possible for an XMPP-compliant server to be configured by an admin that doesn't want to allow privacy lists for policy reasons, and still be an XMPP- compliant server.

The Jabber registrar, at:

http://www.jabber.org/registrar/disco-features.html





On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Trejkaz wrote:

lists jabber:iq:privacy as a feature that can be discovered. The disco-ability of the feature isn't mentioned in the RFC's, since JEP-30 postdates the work that was done at the IETF. If there are implementations that implement privacy lists, but don't show the feature, ask the developers nicely to add this to their disco#info results.

On Monday 06 February 2006 02:12, Alexey Nezhdanov wrote:

Yes exactly, they should not claim this if they have some core parts
unimplemented.

support privacy lists?

TX

--
             Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
         Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
          Web site: http://trypticon.org/
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73

Let's turn this around then. What version should a server claim if it does send stream <features/> in order to support SASL and STARTTLS but doesn't

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature