On 5/21/12 7:22 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 21 May 2012 09:08, Philipp Hancke <fi...@goodadvice.pages.de> wrote: >> The argument of keeping the negotiation of stream features in one place >> mentioned in my mail about 0198 applies to this, too. >> (the root cause of both problems is the inability of dialback to renegotiate >> stream features after authenti... err... whatever, but i don't >> see any way how we could change that. >> > > Yes, Prosody had this issue come up with both compression and 198 > recently.
What are the costs and benefits of doing compression before dialback? > I have to say it's pushing me over to the > we-need-to-deprecate-dialback camp... solving it in our code for each > individual case is possible, but hacky at best. Designing something to replace dialback seems like "fun". Getting everyone to implement and deploy it seems even more fun. > Even if we keep the same authenti...thingy around, at least we should > have something more integrated into our normal feature negotiation. > like SASL is. We had discussions long ago about defining a SASL mechanism for dialback. That would slot in rather nicely, no? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
