Re: [xmpp] the stream negotiation process

[Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>]

On Fri Oct 23 18:58:04 2009, Justin Karneges wrote:
> I'm not opposed to deferring features from appearing as a way of  
> making other
> features required.  But first: does anyone know if not offering  
> SASL on the
> first pass could cause a problem with existing code?  Or if it may  
> violate
> RFC 3920?

Just to pick up on this point, features can surely only be advertised  
if they're available.

If they're not available - because the client cannot use them in this  
stream, since it needs to do the TLS dance and make a new stream -  
then they shouldn't be advertised.

If you're reading RFC 3920 as saying that all possible features -  
even those not yes available - must be listed, then I'd think that  
would need clarification.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade