Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive. Good point, going to change it. None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me. If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
On 5 Jun 2015 08:44, Florian Schmaus f...@geekplace.eu wrote: On 05.06.2015 09:36, Dave Cridland wrote: On 5 June 2015 at 07:24, Florian Schmaus f...@geekplace.eu mailto:f...@geekplace.eu wrote: On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org mailto:edi...@xmpp.org wrote: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive. Good point, going to change it. None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me. If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden. I think the definition of a stanza is a routed top-level element, so an extension that negotiated routed Nonzas is actually negotiating a new stanza type. My reading of RFC 6120 seems to leave room for negotiating new stanzas (and moreover, they needn't have the common attributes of §8.1). I don't think so. It appears to me that Stanzas are very well defined in RFC 6120. See below. However, I don't think that RFC 6120 actually defines what a stanza *is*. From XEP-Nonza: Stanzas ... are specified in RFC 6120 [2] § 4.1 Stream Fundamentals and § 8. XML Stanzas Ah, yes. Hadn't noticed the 4.1 definition. That's very much more restrictive, and doesn't seem to leave room for new stanza types. Moreover, it also suggests that XEP-0114 stanzas aren't actually stanzas. Therefore under this proposal they would be unroutable nonzas. 3) Some convenient term of art for first child elements of the stream - ie, the collective term for both Stanzas and Nonzas. Top-level stream element? We've used TLE in the past, I think. - Florian
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
On 5 June 2015 at 07:24, Florian Schmaus f...@geekplace.eu wrote: On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive. Good point, going to change it. None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me. If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden. I think the definition of a stanza is a routed top-level element, so an extension that negotiated routed Nonzas is actually negotiating a new stanza type. My reading of RFC 6120 seems to leave room for negotiating new stanzas (and moreover, they needn't have the common attributes of §8.1). However, I don't think that RFC 6120 actually defines what a stanza *is*. Sending an unknown top-level element gives you an unsupported-stanza-type/ error, and it lists what stanzas it defines, and talks a lot about them. But nowhere does it say, much to my surprise, something like Stanzas are first-child element of the stream that are routable between XMPP entities addressable by jids. This leaves this XEP in something of a quandry. It defines Nonzas as non-stanzas, but since there's actually no definition of a stanza, so the definition isn't defining much. So what I'd like to see is that this document actually defines three terms, not just one: 1) Stanza. I think we understand what this means. (We may disagree over whether entities could add to the existing set, mind). 2) Nonza. I really hate the term, actually, even Non-Stanza or Unstanza would be better, but this is a matter of taste rather than anything more. 3) Some convenient term of art for first child elements of the stream - ie, the collective term for both Stanzas and Nonzas. It might help to go further, and make this a glossary of the terms of art we use, either providing canonical definitions or pointing to those defined elsewhere. Dave.
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
On 05.06.2015 09:36, Dave Cridland wrote: On 5 June 2015 at 07:24, Florian Schmaus f...@geekplace.eu mailto:f...@geekplace.eu wrote: On 04.06.2015 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org mailto:edi...@xmpp.org wrote: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive. Good point, going to change it. None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me. If you want to send something that is supposed to get routed, why wouldn't you use simply a Stanza instead? I consider it a security improvement if routing of Nonzas is explicitly forbidden. I think the definition of a stanza is a routed top-level element, so an extension that negotiated routed Nonzas is actually negotiating a new stanza type. My reading of RFC 6120 seems to leave room for negotiating new stanzas (and moreover, they needn't have the common attributes of §8.1). I don't think so. It appears to me that Stanzas are very well defined in RFC 6120. See below. However, I don't think that RFC 6120 actually defines what a stanza *is*. From XEP-Nonza: Stanzas ... are specified in RFC 6120 [2] § 4.1 Stream Fundamentals and § 8. XML Stanzas 3) Some convenient term of art for first child elements of the stream - ie, the collective term for both Stanzas and Nonzas. Top-level stream element? - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
On 3 Jun 2015, at 16:02, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html I like short XEPs - much easier to scan through :) The definition here seems potentially useful. I would add a ‘generally’ to 4 so that it becomes “...they are generally used in a more…”, so as not to be seen as prescriptive. I’m not sure that the business rules in 5 are useful - particularly given that (2) then has to be clarified to already not apply in some cases. None of the current nonzas are routed, but it doesn’t seem impossible that one might be in the future, and I don’t see a reason to forbid it here. Noting that they’re not expected to be routed seems useful and sufficient, to me. /K
[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Nonzas (are not Stanzas)
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: Nonzas (are not Stanzas) Abstract: This specification defines the term Nonza, describing every top level stream element that is not a Stanza. URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/nonza.html The XMPP Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.
