Was it going to be more clear what to do with port info on the location element?
On 2/17/11 11:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > <bump/> > > Any feedback or objections? > > On 2/11/11 1:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> OK folks, I've made a first attempt at updating the spec, including >> Dave's patch. The results are here: >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.2.html >> >> Please review and comment. >> >> (IMHO the document doesn't provide a super-clear explanation of what the >> protocol does and why it matters -- I'll try to add a paragraph like >> that to the introduction.) >> >> /psa >> >> On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the >>> status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly >>> come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198. >>> >>> Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion >>> thread about this spec: >>> >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html >>> >>> I see two main points... >>> >>> 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation >>> feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here: >>> >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html >>> >>> I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be >>> applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from >>> my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally. >>> >>> 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule >>> (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example, >>> Matthew Wild wrote: >>> >>> I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based >>> algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout >>> handshake... >>> >>> IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course >>> here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless >>> I'm missing something obvious. >>> >>> Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198? >>> >>> Peter >>> >> > -- Joe Hildebrand
