Subject: [xmpp] 3921bis and client/server namespace transition

From: Alexander Holler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:37:52 +0200

Hello,

in April there was a discussion about client/server namespace 
transitions in the mailing list xmpp-standards. While reading that 
discussion I was sure I had read something somewhere in one of the RFCs 
which is conflict with that (and explains why some servers might send 
stanzas with jabber:client namespace over a S2S-stream). Because I've 
just stumpled again over that, I thought I might suggest a change.

In many sections in 3921bis we can read something like:

"If the unavailable notification was gracefully received from the 
client, then the server MUST broadcast the full XML of the presence stanza."

(Just search for "full XML")

Maybe all occurences of "full XML" should be changed to "full XML 
without namespace". That would use the default namespace on every stream 
and one of the unnecessary occurences of the attribute xmlns would be 
removed.

Regards,

Alexander

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:16:23 -0600

On 10/7/10 5:37 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> stanzas with jabber:client namespace over a S2S-stream). 

Such servers behave incorrectly.

> Because I've

Translation between "jabber:client" and "jabber:server" is a matter for
3920bis and is discussed there. XMPP consists of a protocol stack and we
assume that developers who are implementing things higher in the stack
have read the specs that define things lower in the stack. IMHO there is
no need to repeat rules from 3920bis in 3921bis. However, we could add a
note at the first occurrence to the effect that "of course, the server
will still need to transform the 'jabber:client' namespace to
'jabber:server' if it broadcasts the stanza over a server-to-server
stream, as you already know from your reading of [rfc3920bis], right?"

:)

But naturally this also applies to presence subscription stanzas,
messages, and everything else, so why repeat it in 3921bis only for
presence notifications?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexander Holler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:43:19 +0200

> messages, and everything else, so why repeat it in 3921bis only for

I would prefer to clarify the (possible) conflict of the wording "full 
XML" in 3921bis with the above layer (3920), at least at the first 
occurenc of "full XML". Because I'm no native english speaker, I'm not 
very helpfull in searching another phrase, but for me "full XML" implies 
including the namespace (because of that "full").

If it would be clear to every reader the discussion (or warning) in 
xmpp-standards would'nt have been necessary.

Cross reading complicated standards like XMPP is hard enough, and such 
things like that (imho wrong) "full" doesn't make it easier. I know what 
is meant (and I have read 3921bis ;) ), but from an implementers point 
of view, this are things which may lead to errors in implementations and 
should, if possible, be avoided.

Regards,

Alexander

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:48:24 -0600

> should, if possible, be avoided.

How's this?

      Implementation Note: By "full XML" is meant the complete stanza
      from the opening <presence> tag to the closing </presence> tag,
      including all elements and attributes whether qualified by the
      content namespace or extended namespaces; however, in accordance
      with the rules defined in [XMPP-CORE], the contact's server will
      of course need to modify the content namespace from 'jabber:
      client' to 'jabber:server' if it sends the complete stanza over a
      server-to-server stream.

/psa

---

From: Alexander Holler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:09:26 +0200

Am 07.10.2010 15:48, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>        from the opening<presence>  tag to the closing</presence>  tag,

That would be a nice note. Thanks a lot. ;)

Regards,

Alexander

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:11:22 -0600

> That would be a nice note. Thanks a lot. ;)

Consider it done (with some words removed to make it more succinct).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/