On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote:
> On 8 July 2014 16:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <droma...@avaya.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> >> >> An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets >> binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was >> written, so of course, they can do without it. Now that the binding exist, >> the option should be visible IMO. >> >> >> > OK, but why is this case different to, for example, an IMAP extension, > where we don't say "Updates: 3501" every time - indeed, qresync got serious > push-back over the Updates there. > I agree. This document does not update RFC 6120. If an implementation of RFC 6120 does not support this transport, then it will never need to know about the framing changes. If it does, then it will. The two are separate. "Updates" is not a mechanism for advertising additional features. --Richard > > Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > x...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
