Hi! This specification is used in Vacuum-IM to enable Off The Record mode as described here http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0136.html#otr
Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:46:48 -0600 от Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>: >On 9/4/14, 9:13 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> Am 14.01.2008 um 21:32 schrieb XMPP Extensions Editor: >>> Version 1.2 of XEP-0155 (Stanza Session Negotiation) has been released. >>> >>> Abstract: This specification defines a method for formally negotiating >>> the exchange of XML stanzas between two XMPP entities. The method uses >>> feature negotiation forms sent via XMPP message stanzas to enable >>> session initiation between entities that do not share presence >>> information or have knowledge of full JabberIDs and therefore is also >>> suitable for use across gateways to SIP-based systems. A wide range of >>> session parameters can be negotiated, including the use of end-to-end >>> encryption, chat state notifications, XHTML-IM formatting, and message >>> archiving. >>> >>> Changelog: Specified that IM message bodies must not be included; >>> added boolean multisession field to explicitly determine whether >>> multiple concurrent sessions are allowed between the full JIDs of the >>> parties. (psa) >>> >>> Diff: >>> >>> http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0155.xml?r1=662&r2=1574 >>> >>> >>> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0155.html >>> >> >> Old thread alert... just stumbled about this. > >Wow, that is one old thread! > >> It doesn't seem to have gotten much traction since 2008. Its main >> purpose seems to be SIP-interop and the IETF STOX WG has not used it >> afaics. Shall we deprecate this in favor of RFC 7247 et al? > >As a co-author of both XEP-0155 and RFC 7247 (etc.), I am strongly in >favor of deprecating XEP-0155. We were not able to reference it in the >STOX WG at the IETF because it hasn't been implemented and deployed >widely enough. > >Since my co-author on XEP-0155 (Ian Paterson) disappeared from our >community years ago, I don't know of anyone else who is using this >specification, but if you are then please speak up. > >Peter > >
