Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

clarify that the order of CAP REQ parameters is not significant #549

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

clarify that the order of CAP REQ parameters is not significant #549

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0246ceb
clarify that the order of CAP REQ parameters is not significant
slingamn Aug 4, 2024
97e1d85
add erratum
slingamn Aug 4, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions extensions/capability-negotiation.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ which is not enabled, the server MUST continue processing the REQ subcommand as
handling this capability was successful.

The capability identifier set must be accepted as a whole, or rejected entirely.
The order of capabilities within the list is not significant.

Clients SHOULD ensure that their list of requested capabilities is not too long to be
replied to with a single ACK or NAK message. If a REQ's final parameter gets sufficiently
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -549,3 +550,6 @@ Previous versions of this spec did not state that capability names MUST NOT star

Previous versions of this spec did not state that space-separated capability lists may end with
a trailing space.

Previous versions of this spec did not state that the order of capabilities within a single
CAP REQ line is not meaningful.