David Richards wrote:
I would like to see the advertisement section (2.3) revised to be more prescriptive about how to use the two forms. It seems to me that an XMPP 1.0 stream should only advertise with the old dialback namespace method on the initial stream element of the negotiation in case it's a 0.9 implementation. If the response is a 0.9 stream then keep going in that mode. If the response is a 1.0 stream, it should not include the old namespace and then must include a dialback feature. Not including the feature seems wrong - 0220 only says it is preferred, not required. Preferably, the receiving server would not include the old namespace at all on the stream in response to a 1.0 stream. It just confuses matters. And on stream restarts, the old ns should not be used at all by either side.
This _might_ break things with good old jabberd1. At least not including the dialback namespace in the stream header on a 1.0 stream failed back in... 2006.
Also, why the recommendation to have dialback required and SASL optional if both are advertised? I'm not sure it matters, just curious about the rationale. Seems like the server would mark as required the one that it prefers since it doesn't make sense to do both - sort of a makeshift priority indicator.
I think we can just remove the <required/> and <optional/>, since that is no longer defined in 3920bis :-)
Thanks for the feedback! philipp
