Curtis King wrote: > > On 6-Mar-08, at 12:50 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: > >> What counts as what is a matter of what the usual design practices and >> trends >> are for related specifications. > > An other factor to consider is how most people actually implement a > protocol. Guess what, it's not by reading the RFCs and XEPs in great > detail ;-) It's by protocol examples either from tcpdumps or the > specification itself and then testing against a common server or client > until it "works". So, it's very common for someone to miss the fact some > data should be treated as opaque. The best specifications define how the > data should be interpreted.
Heh, true. Why do you think our specs have so many examples? "We put the example in example.com!" /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
