On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html
> The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 > so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be > seen as prescriptive. Good point, going to change it. > None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that > one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. > Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to > me. If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
