2009/10/26 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. > Agreed, this is how I interpret it also. Matthew
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.