-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/09 3:32 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > 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. The text in 3920bis (and I think also 3920) talks about "available features", but if need be we can clarify this a bit further. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrpjfEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzsQgCfeT+LWOCReRYJwT64+NvjwTmm Cl8AoN3R8KUsjRTXbXk2V8cUIiz4abdV =fviE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.