Re: [xmpp] draft-cridland-xmpp-session-00

[Ralph Meijer <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-06-10 05:44, Curtis King wrote:
> 
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 9 June 2014 17:36, Curtis King <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Instead of adding an redundant flag into the XMPP spec. Why doesn’t this draft state the <optional/> flag explicit and give the session as an example? Otherwise we will be adding <optional/> to more features than session.
>>
>> We've discussed, and rejected, this before, for example:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/current/msg02403.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/current/msg01125.html
>>
>> I'm not averse to reopening the discussion, though I'll still argue against it. One or other of a generic <optional/> and <required/> will always be redundant, and multiple <required/> elements will often conflict.
>>
>> In any case, you'll note that <optional/> in this instance doesn't really mean "optional" so much as "redundant" - in fact, I think the name is an artifact of the discussion we had back then, though I can't find the thread that proposes it in this case. (But both M-Link and Prosody do this, so I assume it was discussed sometime).
> 
> It was in the 3921bis draft then removed. BTW, we are about to remove it from M-Link because it isn’t covered in any RFC or XEP.

Alas, <required/> elements are (or are not) defined per stream feature,
in whatever document specifies them, not in any generic way. You are
correct that we shot down that idea in the threads linked above.

This Draft proposes a flag to make optional negotiation explicit, while
RFC 3921 (the only document specifying the protocol) make it required by
default. Also, see my other messages.

As for the flag not being in any RFC or XEP, isn't that what this draft
is exactly about? It is not like there is any hurry in removing it from
your code base right now.

Chairs, I want to request this Draft to become a Workgroup item.

-- 
ralphm