XSF Discussion - 2020-04-29

Ge0rG, MattJ, how would an error element for 389 look like? Just <error type='foobar'/> or is it <stream:error type='foobar'/>?

Unless the error is intended to close the stream (which I doubt), then I'd borrow from https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#stanzas-error

MattJ, thanks for the reference!

Which is exactly why I used IQ syntax initially

I maintain that any sensible library would be able to understand an error element whatever it is wrapped in

like any nonza that contains an error element is handled as an error?

I don't think you can do that necessarily, no

Isn't an unrecognised nonza stream-fatal already?

then I probably do not follow

good question, is it desirable? if so, the nonza xep should potentially recommend it

IIRC smack currently just logs it

but then again, why not do the same if you get an unexpected message with an unsupported payload? is that different from an unexpected nonza? probably yes

of course, stanza a routable, you wouldn't want to disconnect if you get an "unexpected" message

whereas nonzas aren't

argl xep389 uses numeric IDs… and no schema at all

flow, sam is open for discussion about 389, please bring up your feedback on the ML or directly to sam

and there is no specification for the error case if the client uses an invalid id in register

marc, i'll use the ML once I find the time

flow, nice, please do

unread mails on standards@ in my inbox: 4006

flow, https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#streams-error-conditions-unsupported-stanza-type is what I meant

But it doesn't explcitly mention the server->client direction

MattJ, I think rfc6120 § 4.9.3.24 is sufficient for me to make smack stream-error on unknown *nonzas*

but what about *unexpected* nonzas?

Hi. Which XML namespaces can I use during development of a new "maybe" XEP - what is requited to get a "urn:xmpp:*" namespace?

getting accepted as a XEP is all that you need to be able to use urn:xmpp:* (or getting another formal approval from the XSF I guess). Just use whatever you see fit for you potential XEP, at least in the document.

I'd say in documents you're proposing always use urn:xmpp, but in deployments use something else as long as it's not accepted(?)

pep., ACK, thanks.

> Registration of protocol namespaces is initiated by the XMPP Extensions Editor when a XEP advances to Draft or Active. haha what

pep.> I'd say in documents you're proposing always use urn:xmpp, but in deployments use something else as long as it's not accepted(?) I'd actually say it is fine to use urn:xmpp:* there too, as you then do not have to change the namespace on acceptance

DebXWoody, ^

But you'd change on refusal?

Probably not