[Standards] PEP private nodes

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:50 PM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> 
>> Regarding Joe suggestion, the fact that later a client can 
>> specifically change the configuration and therefore change the access 
>> model to recently published items invalidates IMHO the "private" in 
>> private storage. So, I'm OK with the proposal provided that SHOULD 
>> becomes a MUST.
> 
> This is a good enough argument for me.  +1 for anything ending in 
> +private MUST be in whitelist access model.

One reason I'm uncomfortable with +private is that it violates the 
spirit of Section 12.12 of XEP-0060:

"NodeIDs MAY have semantic meaning in particular profiles, 
implementations, or deployments of pubsub. However, it is STRONGLY 
RECOMMENDED that such semantic meaning not be used to encapsulate the 
hierarchical structure of nodes; instead, node hierarchy SHOULD be 
encapsulated using collections and their associated child nodes."

Now, PEP is a "particular profile" of pubsub, so it may be OK to say 
that NodeIDs ending in "+private" have special meaning. But I'm not yet 
sure.

> Pedro, would you be ok with having the whitelist default to empty be be 
> able to be changed?  My thinking is that this would only happen at the 
> explicit request of the user, and would allow me to configure two 
> different accounts that were associated with me to share information 
> with one another.

Sure, that seems fine.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070405/9db46559/smime-0001.bin