Re: [xmpp] <optional> and <required/>

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/13/11 12:54 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 3/8/11 7:47 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Just to point out that these sections[1][2] seems to conflict with this
>>> tread[3]. Otherwise, how does it make sense for roster versioning to be
>>> required?
>>>
>>> [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-4.9.3.23
>>> [2]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20#section-2.6.1
>>> [3]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/current/msg01125.html
>>
>> There are two different topics here:
>>
>> 1. Whether any given feature is mandatory-to-negotiate or
>> voluntary-to-negotiate.
>>
>> 2. Whether to define a generalized mechanism for such signalling, which
>> would apply to all features.
>>
>> The mailing list post you've cited applies to #2. Section 2.6.1 of
>> 3921bis applies to #1.
>>
>> I see your point about the <unsupported-feature/> stream error: it might
>> not make much sense to define such an error condition if there is no
>> generalized mechanism for signalling that any given feature is
>> mandatory-to-negotiate...
>>
>> Peter
>>
> 
> I think the <optional/> in 3921bis should go.
> 
> 3921bis defines two stream features. Both are optional. One wants
> <optional/> inside, the other doesn't. I think this <optional/> is a
> leftover from when we tried having a generalized mechanism for
> required features, and the only purpose it serves in this instance is
> to add redundant inconsistency.

You might be correct. I will look at this during AUTH48, i.e., right now.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/