Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-26 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/26/11 1:05 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> BTW, I checked over 1.1rc5 and found a few typos and infelicities, so >> I've checked 1.1rc6 into git: >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.1rc5/vs/1.1rc6 > > That obviously does not document what is currently happening "on the > wi

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-26 Thread Philipp Hancke
BTW, I checked over 1.1rc5 and found a few typos and infelicities, so I've checked 1.1rc6 into git: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.1rc5/vs/1.1rc6 That obviously does not document what is currently happening "on the wire"... Do we need a note stating that the authorizatio

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-25 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/20/11 9:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 4/20/11 7:42 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > I am not sure if backward compability really matters, the last time I > checked I offered EXTERNAL to three servers... jabber.org, > dave.cridland.net and some host running prosody. Righ

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-20 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/20/11 7:42 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: I am not sure if backward compability really matters, the last time I checked I offered EXTERNAL to three servers... jabber.org, dave.cridland.net and some host running prosody. >>> >>> Right. Let's get some feedback Dave Cridland and Matthew

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-20 Thread Philipp Hancke
I am not sure if backward compability really matters, the last time I checked I offered EXTERNAL to three servers... jabber.org, dave.cridland.net and some host running prosody. Right. Let's get some feedback Dave Cridland and Matthew Wild, at the least. I'm not sure that we have any implementat

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-19 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/14/11 3:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 4/14/11 3:30 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> [...] >>> I *think* that this discussion thread leads to the following text in >>> Section 3, but please double-check it. >>> >>> ### >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> 10. Server1 considers E

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/14/11 3:30 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > [...] >> I *think* that this discussion thread leads to the following text in >> Section 3, but please double-check it. >> >> ### >> >> [...] >> >> 10. Server1 considers EXTERNAL to be its preferred SASL mechanism. For >> server

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Philipp Hancke
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: [...] I *think* that this discussion thread leads to the following text in Section 3, but please double-check it. ### [...] 10. Server1 considers EXTERNAL to be its preferred SASL mechanism. For server-to-server authentication the element MUST NOT include an authoriza

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/14/11 2:22 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: never necessary to include the authzid? I suppose the latter approach is simpler... >>> >>> Sure. But that was changed in version 0.0.3 and I don't think we can >>> "fix" that now nor is there a compelling reason. >

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Philipp Hancke
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: never necessary to include the authzid? I suppose the latter approach is simpler... Sure. But that was changed in version 0.0.3 and I don't think we can "fix" that now nor is there a compelling reason. No, there is no compelling need -- such flexibility might be desir

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/14/11 6:11 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> s2s step 10 includes the authorization identity, whereas section 9.2.2. >>> in the RFC includes an empty response. >>> Unless we consider that a bug in the RFC we need some kind of handling >>> for using the stream's from attr

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-14 Thread Philipp Hancke
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: s2s step 10 includes the authorization identity, whereas section 9.2.2. in the RFC includes an empty response. Unless we consider that a bug in the RFC we need some kind of handling for using the stream's from attribute in step 11 when the response is empty. I think it

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-13 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/12/11 1:16 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> FYI, I've finally updated the provisional version of XEP-0178, based on >> list discussion from last October as well as the final versions of both >> RFC 6120 and RFC 6125. >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html

Re: [Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-12 Thread Philipp Hancke
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: FYI, I've finally updated the provisional version of XEP-0178, based on list discussion from last October as well as the final versions of both RFC 6120 and RFC 6125. http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.1r

[Standards] XEP-0178 1.1rc3

2011-04-12 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
FYI, I've finally updated the provisional version of XEP-0178, based on list discussion from last October as well as the final versions of both RFC 6120 and RFC 6125. http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.1rc1/vs/1.1rc3 (Not sure whe