[Standards] IM spec errata

If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec has fixed it already) In the last example in section 7.4, both iq/'s have a @to, though they are not supposed to per Core spec 9.1.1 (a stanza sent from a client to a server for handling by that server (e.g., presence sent

Re: [Standards] IM spec errata

Brett Zamir wrote: If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec has fixed it already) Which spec? We have an awful lot of them... Peter

Re: [Standards] IM spec errata

Sorry, was relying on the subject line--IM spec... Brett Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Brett Zamir wrote: If you're still taking errata on the non-draft spec... (the draft spec has fixed it already) Which spec? We have an awful lot of them... Peter

Re: [Standards] IM spec errata

Brett Zamir wrote: Sorry, was relying on the subject line--IM spec... That is, draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis?

Re: [Standards] IM spec errata

I meant to say the copy at http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3921.html but mistakenly pasted the text version from ietf.org. Oddly, RFC3921 is blocked for me here in China, but only that page (I can get to it via a proxy)! Brett

Re: [Standards] IM spec errata

Sorry again... Clearing the browser cache fixed it... Brett