On Tue Oct 14 02:35:08 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Right, as long as you never send stream management data unless you
first
learn that the other side supports the protocol, this seems fine.
But that's not what happens.
What happens is that the client (initiator) declares the namespace
first off, without knowing whether the server (responder) supports
the protocol. Now, should the responder:
a) Assume that the unknown namespace is not an extension namespace,
and not bother checking for illegal uses of the prefix within stanzas.
b) Assume that the unknown namespace *is* an extension namespace, and
reject the stream as illegal. (The client is violating a MUST NOT).
c) Assume that the unknown namespace might be an extension namespace,
and check each stanza for its usage, thus potentially incurring
significantly increased processing time.
> 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.
Sure. Which is why I suggest namespacing the namespaces we use in
this way, to force the (a) case.
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
