On 2/7/17 8:15 AM, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:04:59 +0100
Ralph Meijer <ral...@ik.nu> wrote:
A client that understands Bind2 can simply see the feature appearing
next to the RFC 6120 one, and choose to negotiate it instead of that.
The problem is, formally speaking, it cannot ignore RFC's binding,
because there are MUSTs in the document (Marvin already listed them).
A client needs to bind a resource. RFC 6120 does not and cannot forbid
anyone from defining and experimenting with an alternative binding
mechanism (among other things, this is why we use namespaces). If those
experiments lead to improved functionality, then we'll consider porting
Bind2 to rfc6120bis. There are no protocol police and I'm not sure why
we'd want them to shut down useful experiments.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
