On Wed Oct 3 17:30:55 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The phrase "not necessary" is not good spec writing (there is no
requirements keyword "NOT REQUIRED" in RFC 2119). Does that text
imply
that the receiving entity MAY send a closing stream tag?
I've not seen a server implementation ever send one, and I'm not sure
what clients would actually do if presented with one. I think the
safer option would be to say MUST NOT, given this matches current
behaviour. (Or "Both entities MUST NOT send a closing </stream> tag.
It is not necessary [...]").
In the case of 6.3.4, there's no way for the client to tell the TLS
negotiation failed under some circumstances, and similarly for the
server, so it's not really very useful anyway. (If a certificate
fails verification, do you send a </stream> TLS encrypted or not?
What do you do when there are no ciphers in common?)
In the case of 6.3.5, you could send a </stream>, but who sends it
first?
Incidentally, whilst it might be nice to maintain a well-formed XML
document, as Greg says, we don't actually need this in practise
anyway, and moreover, that would require both ends to close the
stream prior to reopening it. If that's a MAY, I see lots of
confusion potentially.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
