On Dienstag, 12. Mai 2020 21:02:57 CEST Tedd Sterr wrote: > 4c) Proposed XMPP Extension: Channel Binding Pseudomechanisms - > https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cb-pseudomechanisms.html Jonas is fairly > certain this needs to be addressed at the IETF level - the author, Sam, > points out it will never really be addressed there, as it's protocol > specific and the XMPP-WG is shut down - Jonas concurs, but is still not > sure that mangling the mechanism names is a great way to do this. Zash > approves of the overall goal; Daniel feels the approach is wrong, and > fantasizes about a world where namespaced attributes are a thing. > > Jonas: [on-list] > Georg: [on-list] > Zash: [on-list] > Daniel: [on-list] > Dave: [on-list] (need to think, but would be a firm +1 if it weren't using > pseudo-mechanisms)
As mentioned eleswhere -1. I think the syntax needs to be fixed before Experimental due to unnecessary conflict with the IANA registry. The thing itself is indeed needed and it is good to have a ProtoXEP in that direction. 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] _______________________________________________
