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

Kevin Smith <kevin@kismith.co.uk> Tue, 10 June 2014 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <k.i.smith@gmail.com>
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 73B301A01EB for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 Bk7SaIlc1IBa for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E424C1A01BC for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cc10so1229653wib.0 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DOFZYoxVeCKWg8oDesr+RbCDVza5zYzodAmElSqFgDo=; b=D0JKQphI1uZNmzR4EZJReZqj9JVly/22IN5O+0bkQxUAFQlvn7CArg6uJjk0Qq9PBe ChXp3rg8vXcqZz7kGrZvUJlEKSRAagKSOE1xghFDcLBguQvdcp2ih9Pa5aHk1L2G7boT jZyROMeUQoXw57PXGzrmDCDaUWiDjTcjb3+JzIoqNS30Ou2nmH0lgp+bNc+E5V1KAvCe u2OyP+p6RFSgvgTYcbZWp0tZXwvlfd2baM5270KYs4LWflcbZt7K27FeVrLQiG4Q/y0u mZMg97CoQRT04wrq13B8tDKkBHC5LzZlHH9FLOHM0lJz1vEDum7QK7jb6/VhFs7mPiie Q7Iw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.106 with SMTP id ex10mr2681376wid.30.1402387625115; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: k.i.smith@gmail.com
Received: by 10.217.59.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyamFr6LAk0B+fkdvFg7hoapakNj0bJ9yKPFTd3sET52Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKHUCzwJrykJrOscQowXOKZY1Aq7MA+YRWz=XanDknY+7zq6qg@mail.gmail.com> <B97418EC-47DF-439E-85C2-835761F6D694@andyet.net> <5395DF40.2030509@stpeter.im> <292F40A9-A302-477B-AF26-57B1D3024BEC@mumbo.ca> <CAKHUCzyoB04UM63afZctwsCTRKCs=WJ_DjSZrS4Vw8w3iqUarg@mail.gmail.com> <557B118B-21BE-43FD-905A-9B725836E66F@mumbo.ca> <CAKHUCzyamFr6LAk0B+fkdvFg7hoapakNj0bJ9yKPFTd3sET52Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:07:05 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: O47NCOC_ikxRKBSO2yqdePFf0Js
Message-ID: <CAOb_FnzePrYr++b8r2oCS07eLCB7R0kuFmY2wkqZB=M8SEP0Vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Smith <kevin@kismith.co.uk>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/Ow2SeLhiCbXuLjG8ZBeMjUwh3KE
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
Reply-To: kevin@kismith.co.uk
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: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:09 -0000

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:
>> This draft will require servers and client changes, you could accomplish
>> the same goal by a pure informational draft pointing such features are
>> optional. Then only certain clients need to change. Note: Good clients like
>> Swift already ignore the session feature.
>>
>
> Then it's not a good client - the session feature, if advertised, is
> mandatory.

Yeah, I don't believe this is true. Swift treats the session start as
unnecessary, but if it's offered by the server it'll negotiate it. The
relevant code is splattered around
http://swift.im/git/swift/tree/Swiften/Client/ClientSession.cpp

> So if you remove the <optional/> marker from M-Link, every
> conforming client has to negotiate it.

Every 3920/1 client, that is, rather than every 6120/1 client. yes?

> You can't claim that if it's RFC 6121
> only then it's exempt, because then certain servers won't work (I think
> ejabberd is one that actually requires the <session/>, in line with RFC
> 3921).

Right. Clients still need to implement this for old servers (I assume
modern ejabberd /doesn't/ require this, but very old versions are
undoubtedly out in the wild).


I think the draft is roughly the right thing to do. Nits:

od->of

<optional/> really isn't what this really is. Is there scope for
naming it <obsolete/>? How widely deployed are clients-servers that
use optional and are unlikely to be upgradable? I'm uncomfortable with
standardising that <optional/> means MUST NOT. If we have to do this,
we should probably add some text that <optional/> is only used in the
context of session startup.

/K