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

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On 10 June 2014 09:07, Kevin Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think the draft is roughly the right thing to do. Nits:
>
> od->of
>
>
Thanks. I've also heard (from Openfire devs) that the statement explaining
where <optional/> should go isn't very clear, plus it could use an example
of the advertisement.


> <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.
>
>
I think we do have to do this - as I say, this is based on deployed running
code. We get significant value by documenting the status quo over inventing
something new, and while I dislike <optional/> as a name, it's what we
have, and we know it works.

Looking back on it, though, saying <optional/> means "MUST NOT" is too
strong anyway; it should be "SHOULD NOT" at most, since it doesn't affect
interoperability. Perhaps "MAY", with a note saying it's a waste of a
round-trip?

I'll try some text.

Dave.