Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
HelloOn Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:44:50PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:In today's meeting of the XMPP Council we discussed whether the specifications we will use for the 2008 certification program (i.e., XEPs 211 and 212) should refer to rfc3920bis and rfc3921bis (the in-progress revisions to RFCs 3920 and 3921, a.k.a. "the bis drafts"). Here is my take:How much additional work would it be to test both and say "It complies to this one, but not this one"?
Everything in the bis drafts should be backward compatible. Most of the differences are corrections, clarifications, and specification of things that were unspecified or underspecified in the RFCs. As far as I can see the substantive changes are:
1. Specified that TLS plus SASL PLAIN is mandatory-to-implement 2. Defined <malformed-request/> SASL error 3. Defined optional binding of multiple resources 4. Defined <unknown-sender/> stanza error for multiple resource binding 5. Defined <not-modified/> stanza error for future ETags usage 6. Added optional server dialback stream feature 7. Recommended HMAC-SHA256 for dialback key generation 8. Removed IM session establishment protocol (now a no-op) 9. Moved communications blocking to XEP-0016 10. Removed acks for presence subscribed, unsubscribe, unsubscribed Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
