On 5 Dec 2017, at 09:31, Jonas Wielicki <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I think you’re responding to a different point than I was making. I’m saying that bumping or not makes no difference here. In both cases a validator that doesn’t understand the new elements won’t accept them. > Also, I still don’t believe that intermediate servers should validate content > which doesn’t concern them. This is a real use case. You won’t typically see it much on the Internet, but it’s a real use case. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
