On 31 Jan 2019, at 18:20, Mathieu Pasquet <[email protected]> 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?
Right. The intention is that you get IM-NG instead of Carbons, but it’s somewhat premature at the moment. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
