Re: [Standards] RFC 6120 vs. Bind2 XEP

2017-02-08 Thread Ralph Meijer
On 06-02-17 15:53, Marvin Gülker wrote: On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:25:15PM +0300, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: I guess that's your opinion? Or where is it stated in the RFC? is a mandatory-to-negotiate feature (at least if included), thus, clients MUST NOT ignore it. I tend to agree with this.

Re: [Standards] RFC 6120 vs. Bind2 XEP (was: CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption)

2017-02-06 Thread Kevin Smith
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 14:53, Marvin Gülker wrote: > Someone creating a new XMPP client naturally starts by > implementing RFC 6120, only to discover that it is obsoleted by > practice. But they would still interoperate, because 6120 is the baseline. Bind2 is not the

Re: [Standards] RFC 6120 vs. Bind2 XEP (was: CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption)

2017-02-06 Thread Marvin Gülker
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:25:15PM +0300, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > I guess that's your opinion? Or where is it stated in the RFC? xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/> is a mandatory-to-negotiate > feature (at least if included), thus, clients MUST NOT ignore it. I tend to agree with this.