> For me personally, the contra-Nonza arguments did not convince me. It > appears that nothing in the specification prevents you from using Nonzas > after resource binding with BOSH. XEP-206 3. only says "SHOULD contain". > I also don't see why they would introduce "a bunch of conceptual and > implementations problems".
I agree with you. The contra arguments are weak. I think Prosody even advertises XEP-0198 over BOSH, so clients would use it. And I also see no implementation problems. But...: As Georg pointed out, I also think the biggest problem is, that they are not tracked by XEP-0198. In the XEP-0352 case, "Nonzas" could get lost without resending them upon stream resumption, leaving the client under the impression that it's active, although the server thinks it's inactive. Theoretically your rules could be applied to XEP-0186 Invisile Command or XEP-0280 as well. Or even more XEPs, maybe like Blocking Command. (all of which uses elements, which don't get routed). I see problems with having neither IQ responses nor the XEP-0198 reliability, when using "Nonzas". Oh and I'd prefer to just call them (top-level) XML elements, or Stream elements. Nonza sounds really weird. There's no need to invent a new name, imo. -Christian
