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 EXTERNAL to be its preferred SASL mechanism. For >>> server-to-server authentication the<auth/> element MUST NOT include an >>> authorization identity (thus Server1 includes an empty response of "=" >>> as shown in RFC 6120). >>> >>> <auth xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl' >>> mechanism='EXTERNAL'>=</auth> >>> >>> Interoperability Note: Previous versions of this specification relied on >>> the authorization identity being present on the receiving server. Even >>> though this is no longer required, the connecting server should include >>> it for backward compability. >> >> MUST NOT include but should include for backward compability? >> Include it always and blame it on me (even though I don't have the old >> logs from 2006). >> >> 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 implementations with which to be > backward compatible. :)
Please see the latest version, reflecting what I think is the consensus from list discussions: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc4 The XMPP Council will be considering this tomorrow, feel free to join the meeting at 15:00 in xmpp:coun...@muc.xmpp.org Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
