Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Dnia 25-07-2007, śro o godzinie 09:32 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre > napisał(a): >> We have a malformed-request error here: >> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-03.html#sasl-errors-malformed-request >> > > My concern is that we do not have it here: > http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html#rfc.section.6.4 > So if I do report malformed-request error, my implementation will be no > longer RFC3920 compliant.
Correct. You would no longer be compliant with RFC 3920. Instead, you would be compliant with rfc3920bis, which (compared to RFC 3920) incorporates errata, corrections, best practices learned from 3+ years of implementation experience, and modifications to track specifications on which XMPP depends. RFC 3920 referred to RFC 2222, whereas rfc3920bis refers to RFC 4422. Both RFC 2222 and RFC 4422 define SASL, but RFC 4422 is the most up-to-date definition of SASL, since it too incorporates errata and corrections and so on. RFC 4422 talks about malformed requests. RFC 2222 did not. Therefore in rfc3920bis we have added a way to properly handle malformed SASL requests. Naturally, no one is forcing you to comply with rfc3920bis. You can do that now, you can wait until rfc3920bis is approved by the IESG, you can wait until it is published with a nice new number by the RFC Editor, you can ignore RFC 3920 forever. The choice is yours. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
