On 8 February 2017 at 08:53, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote: > Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:19:17 +0000 > Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Right, I understand, and largely agree. I might scribble a draft to >> address this, by clarifying what we really meant here. > > I see also two issues here ;) >
Yup, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that's an entirely reasonable interpretation of the document. It's also clearly against the spirit of our understanding, otherwise, as you say, XEP-0198 would have also run into this problem. It's also not what we want. Given that, I'm suggesting this is a technical errata in RFC 6120. > 1. RFC6120, section 7.1 says: > >> After a client authenticates with a server, it MUST bind a specific >> resource to the stream so that the server can properly address the >> client. > > Thus, a client is unable to resume a session in any case. > > 2. While almost everybody here argued that "resource binding" is any > binding mechanism, including Bind2, RFC6120 clearly defines "resource > binding": > > Section 7.3.1: > >> The parties to a stream MUST consider resource binding as mandatory- >> to-negotiate. > > And section 7.1 defines: > >> The XML namespace name for the resource binding extension is >> 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'. > > In my book, "resource binding" is exactly something within > 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind' namespace, unambiguously. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
