On Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017 08:30:38 CET Kevin Smith wrote: > On 4 Dec 2017, at 09:33, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Serous question: I wonder where do you see the benefit in schema > > > >> validation? You (always) need a parser which ensures that protocol > >> requirements like "this attribute must exist", or "this attribute must > >> be a uint32_t" are fulfilled. > > > > I have this validator in ejabberd, yes. And if it's enabled, the stanza > > with <retry/> element will be rejected. And I consider this as a correct > > behaviour. > > I think that’s ok, isn’t it? > > I think the two options (as-is, or new namespace) are equivalent from your > validator’s point of view: 1) As-is: previous version payloads are allowed > through, new versions won’t be allowed through until the validator is > updated 2) New namespace: previous version payloads are allowed through, > new versions won’t be allowed through until the validator is updated > > So I don’t think that on it’s own is necessarily a reason to bump the > namespace, is it?
I don’t think that’s ok. ejabberd would violate the expectation of the user that either a type="result" or type="error" is returned, if they simply filter out the "erroneous" stanza. Also, I still don’t believe that intermediate servers should validate content which doesn’t concern them. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
