Re: draft-cridland-xmpp-session-00

On 2014-06-10 10:33, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> 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.

 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.

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


> [..]
>> I'm not sure what you mean here. To be sure, this flag is only being
>> defined for this namespace / stream feature.
> 
> Yes. I think this is worth being explicit about.

Agreed.


-- 
ralphm