On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Kevin Smith <ke...@kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Mark Rejhon <marky...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh wow -- This is a massive surprise for me. > > *precedent* in a *Final* standard -- that allows bypassing disco! > > Before planning too much based on the precedent that CSN sets, it's > worth noting that the precedent in question is that there was a > protocol that predates caps and used another signalling method, and > that this was retrofitted with caps support once it was available in > preference to the legacy method, which was only left in place to deal > with existing clients that deployed with the legacy method. > I will re-evaluate XEP-0115 -- the one I think you're referring to? I'm not yet convinced that it is sufficient (by itself) to satisfy all the pre-requisites without using fallback mechanisms, but I will give it a careful reading to run all required scenarios that many of us feels the spec must be able to support. > I'm still aiming to do a review of the XEP soon - I'll try to suggest > appropriate text for bits that I suspect need it when I do. > Please. Thanks! Keep in mind of the big laundry lists of suggestions already submitted by others; Thanks, Mark Rejhon
