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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo