On 3/20/17 3:32 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Loosely, this is OK, but, in order: > > 1) Section 6 must go. I don't believe that the XSF has the required > expertise to adequately review a SASL mechanism. I'm saying this > without commenting on the mechanism described in Section 6. This needs > to go through the IETF (this document can reference any particular > SASL mechanism for MTI it likes, including this one). The right > working group is - probably - Kitten, though traditionally XMPP itself > works through the ART area, and we might want to give an ART AD or two > a heads-up. This issue is a blocker for me.
Agreed. Also, what is the "X-" in "X-HT-*"? I hope it's not short for "experimental" because https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6648.txt discourages such things... Peter _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
