On 14 November 2017 at 18:48, Diane Trout <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 18:06 +0000, Dave Cridland wrote: >> But it's also a compromise without effect - every existing >> implementation fo S2S I can find, excepting Microsoft Lync, supports >> XEP-0114 "accept" components. >> >> So arguing over whether it's a Core, Advanced, or neither feature >> seems a bit pointless - except that it means XEP-0387 may reflect >> neither the current reality nor any particular desirable future. > > Alternatively can servers that don't support federation be considered > compliant with XMPP in any meaningful sense? >
Well... XMPP compliant, certainly. Useful for XEP-0387? Not so much. > For instance the ojsxc[1] app in Nextcloud installs a minimal local > only xmpp server that seems to only support the jabber:iq:roster, > jabber:client, and vcard-temp namespaces. > > XEP 387 has specialized client compliance suites, you could also > consider specifiying a server suite to specify what is needed to > "support federation". I don't think there's anything we'd put there except RFC 6120. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
