On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 07:58 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I wonder: can that model be generalized to other extensions? (Think > pubsub, gateways, etc.)
> > 4. The error condition is 'sasl-required'. Does this imply that > normal MUC password auth should fail, even with a correct password? > > What do you think? > > Because legacy MUC passwords are sent in the clear, a given MUC > service might not want to accept that other method, but in practice I > think they would for quite a while. How about something new instead of `<feature var='muc_passwordprotected'/>' to advertise SASL support. -- Kim Alvefur <z...@zash.se>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
