On 6/28/22 4:05 AM, Georg Lukas wrote:
* Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> [2022-06-14 22:07]:
a) Proposed XMPP Extension: WebSocket S2S
(https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/websocket-s2s.html)
+1 though I wonder if it makes sense to release a XEP for s2s where we
have an RFC for c2s. Maybe harmonizing both under the same organization
would be more beneficial in the mid- to long term?
That's probably a good idea. Ideally I would suggest that someone author
an RFC that obsoletes RFC 7395 and includes the s2s bits, but that would
require someone to navigate IETF process. I'm happy to help as needed.
b) Proposed XMPP Extension: XMPP over QUIC
(https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xmpp-over-quic.html)
+1
One could argue that a transport definition like this belongs at the
IETF, too. But I suppose it could be included in rfc6120bis (if that
ever happens).
The wording "Client or server MUST ..." is ambiguous. We should adopt
the "initiating entity" and "receiving entity" wording from XMPP-Core
instead.
+1
I'd like to hear a proper rationale for udp/443 and not the IANA
assigned port (although the assignment is only for tcp/5222), and we
should probably request udp/5222 for XMPP-over-QUIC.
It should be fairly straightforward to request udp/5222. Here again I
can help with the IANA communications if needed.
The ALPN entries are already assigned, so that part looks good.
Agreed.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
