Peter earlier mentioned that RFC3920bis refers to RFC5952 which
recommends using square brackets around an IPv6 address:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-4.9.3.19
This is what I was suggesting as well. I think the host:port notation is
quite common and [IPv6]:port will be, as well, in an IPv6 world.
Cheers,
Ben
On 2/17/11 2:57 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Was it going to be more clear what to do with port info on the location
element?
On 2/17/11 11:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<[email protected]> wrote:
<bump/>
Any feedback or objections?
On 2/11/11 1:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
OK folks, I've made a first attempt at updating the spec, including
Dave's patch. The results are here:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.2.html
Please review and comment.
(IMHO the document doesn't provide a super-clear explanation of what the
protocol does and why it matters -- I'll try to add a paragraph like
that to the introduction.)
/psa
On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the
status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly
come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198.
Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion
thread about this spec:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html
I see two main points...
1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation
feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be
applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from
my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally.
2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule
(based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example,
Matthew Wild wrote:
I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based
algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout
handshake...
IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course
here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless
I'm missing something obvious.
Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198?
Peter
