Dear James and Matthew, A minor point while implementing it (finished, will announce it soon).
If a new "long" password is presented, it is exchanged in the <newPW> node. However for events, among the list of possible values for type you have: newPw I see no reason for the different casing. I recommend that the type value is also newPW or, to be more in line with other values to just spell it out in full, hence "newPassword". In fact I have found out one instance of <loginSec:newPw> for the XML node, so maybe a leftover of a previous change. You may want to double check all examples/quotes of the node name to have the proper casing. Also since all 3 nodes are optional under loginSec you may wish to specify that the extension should be sent only if at least one of the node is present beneath it. Or what the server should reply if it gets only an empty root node. (and on a more philosophical level, I feel userAgent should not be defined in this extension because it has nothing to do with passwords and could be useful just be itself; it is useless however to create an extension just for it so I can understand why putting it there, but it is still bundling things together that are not related) And maybe provide some advice about downgrade, what about the following chain of events: - change of password using loginsec:newPW for a long password - but then change back to short password using pure newPW without the loginSec part. Allowed? Recommended? -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
