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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 09 June 2014 16:54 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 0EB9C1A0278 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:54:03 -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 pPvI6J1mIg0O for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x231.google.com (mail-oa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC09C1A0274 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i7so1398874oag.8 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:54:01 -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=RPXHP7YELi/FrujN5JjHoM2TT8lQRVg3iKqu8JBA8dc=; b=TQmzKnADvKiWwGQa7ddd7lO5CZJnqORN407a2d2EcY5l3A73vWs8R1n4C/kn95epQ7 Hch6SEklzWV2ph4Fridunl9RP0ocFj74Psw1qyHIn9hFn3rlsCfZnPd1MP5cz9bcKs/W G7vVh/YLULEuKCcnrrj32v16PwtG7AMVJDAFA=
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=RPXHP7YELi/FrujN5JjHoM2TT8lQRVg3iKqu8JBA8dc=; b=IgX+sWG8d4tn2pDkdnE0/oH1+ovOrFn2+GoRKIGfn7ueOaH0lLyfvcW+PML5SUM+/l cm9Offsf0mMbiLN/r8i2kbMaEFimPPHYKXkiuoLSGwuYYGH7+PiBqoMqHXEQQPmFXwBL 8k/6t8gicEfqBoeHcq41b6LR7qEK+wjNmRQYCBsmYb+iOfRxWA/d7mlRXhGSIlXWe1zI FtGNq6mO+naP0iKmVcUHqIVNEX5z2319FwH5TiiPwQmxOh+x4Za+pnnBrkYbkbvhWjcY qUppMvkxiLU89ncntVtPe/W/1KBxXGdYjv8pTLru9A/Sp2N8Zi5GXu08+KmbGZYfFCMJ m2nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmr1H4mz3f3/oc82EENJSRm8FVgKG3b6Zvzvr1vwCELHmKSKQnV5kD2Vod2kCffDl7yr9Z9
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.132.207 with SMTP id ow15mr10673623oeb.59.1402332841328; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.60.100 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <292F40A9-A302-477B-AF26-57B1D3024BEC@mumbo.ca>
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>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:54:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzyoB04UM63afZctwsCTRKCs=WJ_DjSZrS4Vw8w3iqUarg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Curtis King <cking@mumbo.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b472832dd53e104fb6a0e68
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/Ox6bpIWairNuPEeZi2sZGdnAsLE
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 16:54:03 -0000

On 9 June 2014 17:36, Curtis King <cking@mumbo.ca> 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).

Dave.