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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 09 June 2014 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C271A0096 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0Gox-pI84W6 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94E11A028B for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g18so6173887oah.35 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O5WYLNHKX9sc7KkJFb38mb4BFmsUCyBsuRAVk6O/acM=; b=Kzb07KyOVDW7/FGUnwlA7mLj225xy+z9TO0meUI+FR3bqVgIngT4kZJDTqFLVzfb45 hk+bOtcO8akVXuCczLix//cLsGG9XIaQg2p6I7tLFvB9HvN9doaDonaI3Xed+R1obO8g DZ9miU5H6wgA259Si+xUe7Y8sA1ITZ2wokD4M=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=O5WYLNHKX9sc7KkJFb38mb4BFmsUCyBsuRAVk6O/acM=; b=j5LFYpz8ub7nYamFXuKK54UWSBwiKRy+7QqY0NrnpiIBUSgnvoRjNhlMUBiPwgZGas 6pky5FQwLyEQ6+/UjhmoXAHlwiWyPY7ype5eLUUliUbpzpTdvuDiQueDjNxbXyrTcRPE Mhq3MJL/j5Tpz0iXZkt49nvET6Qo0Rib3CmbQKqCHzscOka3PWyOICd58APStTBZkRpn xvq1toDyYSeQnWJ5+VIORAEOVpyL1hiYFebLmyIGiGoai7pzUKclgn+hyU3V5jJbT6Kp Ug3loH3VUpH7qLgwHQ8R7D2tZcCYDxhh1osvc5y/vRuOUCm+bfj5oYMmIdl8yItocd/a 6UMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlpJ+B5zcS4jVnYUR07QPmHHmlWWUf0Ea7sv661HN2Hcz5xGfZ++e+I10rhT8JnuJWZo+Pa
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.60.65 with SMTP id f1mr3471327obr.78.1402331892271; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.60.100 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5395DF40.2030509@stpeter.im>
References: <CAKHUCzwJrykJrOscQowXOKZY1Aq7MA+YRWz=XanDknY+7zq6qg@mail.gmail.com> <B97418EC-47DF-439E-85C2-835761F6D694@andyet.net> <5395DF40.2030509@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:38:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwzcB=YBKqydRZ-x5Jz9b1m3fno1Ltm0hnJ2z5NaTqy3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538ad84becf104fb69d6ee
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/F8StyS2NcUKakBPOMILHZr2O7ec
Cc: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] draft-cridland-xmpp-session-00
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:38:15 -0000

A careful reading of RFC 3921 suggests that <session/> is itself optional -
if it's not there, it means you don't do it. So from a purely theoretical
standpoint, we were right to just drop it in 6121.

Unfortunately, it seems that existing clients (old versions of Smack, for
example) actually generate errors if it's not advertised, and in fairness,
it's not stand-out clear that <session/> wasn't mandatory for IM servers;
it certainly looks from 3921§C.1 that it's a requirement of XMPP (over
Jabber).


On 9 June 2014 17:22, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> On 6/9/14, 9:46 AM, Lance Stout wrote:
>
>> +1 for standardizing this. It's a pragmatic solution that lets us cut out
>> a round-trip during session startup without worrying about older servers.
>>
>
> +1, seems fine. That was the thinking behind RFC 6121 but it seems that we
> neglected to make the <optional/> flag explicit.
>
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> xmpp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>