[Standards-JIG] MUC, PEP and caps. Was: MUC presence issues

[Ralph Meijer]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 00:29 -0400, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> [..]
> As long as the response is interpreted to mean "the presence that you  
> LAST got from me is still valid", I'm ok with this, since otherwise  
> the server does have to keep track of all of the presence extensions,  
> priorities, etc. to ensure that the new presence is good.  Caps in  
> particular, since, what with PEP, I can imagine sending different  
> caps to different people.

I still have to do a bit of catch-up on the discussion on PEP, but I
don't like the implicit subscription to nodes using caps, that is
suggested in section 9 of XEP-0163. Certainly in the case of MUC, I am
afraid it will generate a lot of unused/unwanted notifications. I don't
think we have fully thought trough the interactions between MUC and
pubsub, but am willing to be proven wrong. 

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm