On Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2020 21:09:35 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2020, at 13:11, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > I did, at first. It is totally irrelevant if it is an extra stream > > feature or not. This just seemed a little bit more esthetic. > > I disagree, it's very relevant. We can discuss both, but how things work > and are implemented may be entirely different if this is a stream > feature that may be negotiated before auth vs. an informational element > on an existing stream feature.
You seem to assume that every thing in <stream:features/> may have to be negotiated at some point. That is not true. XEP-0115 [1] (and the redo XEP-0390) are a prime example of a purely informational feature which is *not* negotiated. Similarly, the channel binding "top level" feature proposed by Florian would simply inform the client about the supported channel binding types, without having to negotiate anything. (I split this off because I don’t think it is of much relevance anymore since we figured out later on in the thread that extending the <mechanisms/> element is completely fine. Just wanted to mention that for clarity.) kind regards, Jonas [1]: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0115.html#stream
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
