On Freitag, 23. Februar 2018 12:36:01 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > * Jonas Wielicki <[email protected]> [2018-02-23 11:39]: > > - This is a larger one: If we’re changing XEP-0077 flow in a backward- > > incompatible manner, wouldn’t it make more sense to do this in a wholly > > new > > namespace, with a new stream feature to advertise support? That would save > > a round-trip (to detect that it *won't* work) and allows to passively > > detect support. > > The client advertises suport by adding a <preauth> element into the > initial IQ. AFAIU IBR, the initial IQ needs to be sent anyway, so we are > piggy-backing here without additional round-trips.
Right. I forgot for a moment that it doesn’t make sense to attempt <preauth/> with any domain except the domain where the token comes from, and that domain should better be supporting <preauth/> ;-) > The server either ignores the element or returns a modified data form / > IBR pseudo-form if supported. Having this as a stream feature and in a separate, new namespace still feels cleaner to me. 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] _______________________________________________
