Pedro Melo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Tue Sep 30 00:27:49 2008, Justin Karneges wrote: >>> > I'm inclined to say, therefore, that either we redeclare the >>> > namespace on each XEP-0198 element, or else we just say that XEP-0198 >>> > extends the jabber:server and jabber:client namespaces - the latter >>> > is uglier in the specification, but much cleaner on the wire. >>> FWIW, dialback also uses a stream-level prefix, which would violate the >>> existing rule you speak of. >> No, because it's not an extension namespace, as per the definition. >> XEP-0198 doesn't fall foul of this rule as-is, either, the problem is >> that a naïve server (ie, one that's never heard of XEP-0198) cannot >> know whether or not the extension namespace rule has been violated, >> and from there, it cannot know if it should use a slower code path, or >> else it might choose to risk generating bad namespace prefixes. > > I might be missing something but such naive server, one that never heard > of XEP-0198, will not announce support for it, right? So what's the > problem?
Right, as long as you never send stream management data unless you first learn that the other side supports the protocol, this seems fine. > I say that we should push the 0198 namespace to the <stream:stream>, it > seems wasteful not to do it. It's a small thing really, but I suppose saving a few bytes per ack is a nice thing. > I've read the current draft and I like it, it seems very complete. I > think the text and examples of section 6, Stream Resumption, are a bit > strange. The examples after each paragraph don't match my expectations > based on the text, but I'll re-read the section more carefully to make > suggestions. I need to re-read it as well. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
