On 05.06.2015 09:36, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 07:24, Florian Schmaus <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. > > > I think the definition of a stanza is a routed top-level element, so an > extension that negotiated "routed Nonzas" is actually negotiating a new > stanza type. My reading of RFC 6120 seems to leave room for negotiating > new stanzas (and moreover, they needn't have the common attributes of §8.1).
I don't think so. It appears to me that Stanzas are very well defined in RFC 6120. See below. > However, I don't think that RFC 6120 actually defines what a stanza > *is*. From XEP-Nonza: Stanzas ... are specified in RFC 6120 [2] § 4.1 "Stream Fundamentals" and § 8. "XML Stanzas" > 3) Some convenient term of art for first child elements of the stream - > ie, the collective term for both Stanzas and Nonzas. Top-level stream element? - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
