On Fri, Dec 4, 2020, at 20:10, Philipp Hancke wrote: > That has less features than 220, in particular you can't add new > domains on *either* side, no? (ofc stream headers suck a bit for this)
Yes, it will definitely need more work. This seems like a useful requirement to add if it gets accepted. I also had some ideas for how we could do auth without having to dial another connection at all that might be worth exploring. > In general I see little value in reinventing the syntax -- it would > take another decade or so to get adoption. I'm not against reusing the old syntax, but since this doesn't actually require dialback anymore I thought that would just lead to confusion. > And please, do NOT BRING BACK the wrong notion of subdomain from RFC > 3920. Discovery is a problem for multiplexing but one has to use DNS, > not make wrong assumptions about it :-) I'm not sure what this means, are you worried about using the term subdomain in the examples? What is the specific confusion this would cause? I think we always use DNS and don't rely on splitting domains or anything improper, so slightly imprecise language that's in common use seems fine to me but I'll try and clean it up a bit. —Sam -- Sam Whited _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
