On 18.06.2016 22:19, Sam Whited wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think that is true at all. SASL authenticates an account, >> whereas ISR authenticates a stream resumption. > > I'm not sure that there's any value in distinguishing between the two: > authentication is authentication and you're authenticating a user > either way; it doesn't matter if it's while creating a session or > while resuming an existing session. We already have a mechanism for > auth, so we should reuse it instead of reinventing the wheel.
No one is reinventing the wheel. What ISR provides is not provided by any existing XEP. I assume Dave wants it to be a SASL mechanism. I wrote before [1] that I'm not convinced that something like ISR should be designed as one. For example the stream/session state after a hypothetical ISR SASL mechanism's <success/> would be different compared to any other SASL mechanism: Stream resumed, no <bind/>, etc., etc.. If we design it as SASL mechanism, then every implementation would need to special case it. So alone for consistency reasons it makes sense to distinguish between user authentication and stream resumption authentication. - Florian 1: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-March/030962.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
