[Standards] PEP private nodes

[Richard Dobson]

> 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.

Personally I think its fine as what we are going to do is not giving it 
any hierarchical meaning.

>> 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.

Although if its going to be a whitelist that can be added to wouldn't it 
be better to have it as "+whitelist"? rather than private as unless you 
can't add anything to the whitelist its not strictly private.

Richard