Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> Btw, are we not moving to using the stream feature instead of the db >>> namespace in the stream to advertise dialback ? >>> In which case, we could just deprecate both use of the namespace, and >>> support for dialback. >> >> Removing the namespace is backward-incompatible with 0.9 servers, no? > > yes ... > A general question would, especially considering that we have already > deprecated most of the xep's which are pre-xmpp, for long are we going > to continue supporting pre-xmpp protocol behavior (for client & server) > in the rfc's ? > Can we remove that for the bis specs ? Hasn't xmpp not been around long > enough to outgrow the 0.9 compatibility ?
I think so. Move dialback off to a XEP and we can tinker with it there. It made sense for us to include it in RFC 3920 but I don't think it belongs in rfc3920bis (which will be published ~3 years after RFC 3920). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
