IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: Roster Get Result conflict w/ roster ver

Jiří Zárevúcky <zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com> Mon, 08 February 2010 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB9A3A6916 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:50:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YURxmvoZ8hTz for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com (mail-fx0-f225.google.com [209.85.220.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FC03A68B8 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so3521513fxm.32 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:50:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=3N6FSqaIn4q+ykyZzAoIkxAnR32uaj6KweKoe+gwN8s=; b=LeF1GjY7VweAvJ10M7420K59VDw+kHaKRQl+DBIeYEWalvbAvvb0gdPwW+nhpwlXQx 3meDtgUuredQZBft25vtXni/Mv5zWd6CjuR/rr1KDpRUCa++rPk6ssDxa+z1GLl16UzN m+SVSgVn4JjcZ60c7tXd68q+kD07KyuQxy7ps=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; b=rCygmWSkZNXpOo1ZSPvFl5XobK1Qks/bI0E7gaB4sxWe1fsG6JpAcIE2m/M0WtKZyI r8mioNPryXChNG/NjBi0S0zrkNo16r7nUgA+MAJiqrUUE7QSLF2yQ/jDnZFxtmMDz6Sr 0U/VLprYrmtMi7sq9ar/sAdr0DDbp1nV4s+VQ=
Received: by 10.102.17.40 with SMTP id 40mr4000951muq.119.1265590257423; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.10.10.20? ([94.229.92.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm18840008muq.9.2010.02.07.16.50.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:50:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Jiří Zárevúcky <zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com>
To: Paul Aurich <paul@darkrain42.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B6F5BEB.6040104@darkrain42.org>
References: <4B6F57DC.2080906@darkrain42.org> <1265588796.2691.3.camel@jury-karmic> <4B6F5BEB.6040104@darkrain42.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-yxA6D/snWT3KQqUg2q1Z"
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:50:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1265590255.2691.10.camel@jury-karmic>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1
Cc: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: Roster Get Result conflict w/ roster ver
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 08 Feb 2010 00:50:04 -0000

Paul Aurich píše v Ne 07. 02. 2010 v 16:33 -0800:
> On 2010-02-07 16:26, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote:
> > Paul Aurich píše v Ne 07. 02. 2010 v 16:16 -0800:
> >> Section 2.1.6 reads, in part:
> >>    If there are no contacts in the roster, then the server MUST return
> >>    an IQ-result containing a child <query/> element that in turn
> >>    contains no <item/> children (e.g., the server MUST NOT return an
> >>    empty <iq/> stanza element).
> >>
> > 
> > That's right.
> > 
> >> I understand the intention of this, but it conflict with the Roster
> >> Versioning section (2.6.2), which requires a response to be either the
> >> full roster -or- an empty <iq/> stanza.
> >>
> > 
> > I don't see any conflict. Can you please be more specific?
> 
> Nevermind, I misparsed the parenthetical in 2.1.6.
> 

Thought so. Happens to me all the time. :)

(missed this part before)
> On a much smaller note, section 2.6 references RFC 3921 as a whole
> twice (it looks like these sections were lifted directly from
> XEP-0237).  The latter of these [c|sh]ould just reference section
> 2.1.6.

Good catch. I've never noticed that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email