IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kevin Smith <kevin@kismith.co.uk> Tue, 10 June 2014 08:48 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 00FCE1A020B for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:46 -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 WHirOhdNIIrK for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0386B1A01EB for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b13so2200532wgh.26 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:43 -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=h73yNvc2LkJZrSh+KQ1q/p6snaBdWwLNKwfPqmpNKz0=; b=QkCqSwhqAZlGatRCuNxJyhdAmaJoFUSUeD/5CK5FgOlafdJPqJL1cYNQWTocVC9BQR W8B58SKa9bOqSU4M2dgXVwyB4NGLCyQFQeboen5YSQUzLYvdAcRwIQIQSpQTSRJkiur6 wfSl3suI38RRaMMx+Wi4FDA2LoQ7buYM9aP4wTcg4irEiLo+G9qKcPHwkffnOsSBCRdz wQscTIE9356tM1fiORuE10vMpQ0hnXOs5O9rcKFPJCua+0ca8CRZE2szqW5pFviQmzz4 IDEL2bPBFy5wcwQVcU6MaHeUALS9VHDR6gCj1qCi7gMInQSABTedeM7CsjRfnCpqobIb V9nw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.74.6 with SMTP id p6mr3388272wiv.17.1402390123462; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: k.i.smith@gmail.com
Received: by 10.217.59.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5396C550.8060909@ik.nu>
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> <CAOb_FnzePrYr++b8r2oCS07eLCB7R0kuFmY2wkqZB=M8SEP0Vw@mail.gmail.com> <5396C131.8030508@ik.nu> <CAOb_FnxHhbxDB2He8c1F=ZSGQecYa2fgwSUPL7=p9oweZ9S8Nw@mail.gmail.com> <5396C550.8060909@ik.nu>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:48:43 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AaalMNl12u1USbVXldsFPRCYI8U
Message-ID: <CAOb_Fnw_0P+wKPDGgaWEH1RspF7Y6B4YQTWcBWV-5NqQgQtzjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Smith <kevin@kismith.co.uk>
To: Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/ayTJnAoF2qbkWCtplyrUJIu7bnY
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 08:48:46 -0000

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu> wrote:
> On 2014-06-10 10:33, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu> wrote:
>> [..]
>>> I disagree. Clients only need to implement this if they want to benefit
>>> from the removal of a roundtrip with servers advertising this flag.
>>
>> 'this' in this case being session establishment, not optional.
>
> Well, yeah:
>
>  1) (New) clients need to implement negotiating Session Establishment to
> interact with servers that advertise Session Establishment, but only if
> advertized.

Yes (and, post this Draft, only if not optional).

>  2) Clients may have to negotiate Session Establishment to work around
> broken servers that don't advertise, but do require it to be negotiated.
> I hope this is never the case, though. If there are such implementations
> in the wild, I hope to have them fixed *and* implement this draft.

Swift negotiates iff it is advertised. I'm not aware of any such broken servers.

>  3) Clients already supporting Session Establishment, SHOULD (per the
> upcoming version of this draft) skip negotiating Session Establishment.

...when advertised as optional.

/K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email