On Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2019 19:20:13 CET Mathieu Pasquet wrote: > Hi List, > > Looking at XEP-0409 and XEP-386, it appears that 0409 says: > > A client activating IM-NG MUST NOT also activate Carbons. > > while 0386 says that after binding, the server MUST: > > Silently enable carbons for this session > > While not strictly conflicting in RFC legalese (with bind 2.0 it’s the > server that enables carbons), I don't think this is the original intent > of the writing. > > Should there be a paragraph regarding this in 0386 saying that if IM-NG > is enabled, the server MUST NOT enable carbons?
I was under the impression that '409 would write down how to use it with '386 and that it would be enabled *instead of* carbons. '409 can perfectly overwrite the rules of '386 in that case. 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] _______________________________________________
