On Tue Mar 6 20:48:16 2012, Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
I wouldn't really say it's obsolete, because if you want to build
a solid server experience, it's safer to follow XEP-0190 than
RFC-6120.
I also wouldn't call it superseded, it may just be perceived as
superseded
by some.
Yes, I originally co-wrote that paragraph on closing idle streams in
RFC-6120 but you managed to water it down later, so now it can be
either
implemented right or wrong depending on your preferences or
patience.
From what I read in the RFC, packets er stanzas can still get lost
on
idle streams if bad luck er bad timing happens. It happens.
I was also concerned that XEP-0190 might be a more detailed write-up
on the nature of closing streams, and this triggered me into
re-reading RFC 6120 on the subject.
There's two sections of note, here:
Section 4.4 covers everything in XEP-0190 ยง2 in significantly higher
detail. My only concern is that there's some fairly confusing detail
about multiple streams and multiple TCP connections that I didn't
quite follow, to be honest.
Section 4.6.3 dicusses idle peers in more detail, and in particular
discusses TCP checking, and other items really not covered in
XEP-0190.
But basically, yes, this XEP is superceded entirely, much to my
surprise, and I think the subject is given a better treatment, with
that one possible exception mentioned above.
Could you elaborate on where you think the RFC is lacking?
Oh, and thanks for asking.
I agree it'd be better to have gven you a heads-up on this.
I also think that technically, this XEP should be "deprecated" rather
than "obsoleted" - it is out of date, rather than wrong.
An argument of keeping it Active, whilst adding a note to the
relevant sections of RFC 6120, would also seem reasonable.
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
