[Standards] POP/PEP/pubsub

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 
> On May 31, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> Perhaps what we ought to do is put a recommendation in PEP about what 
>>> item ID to use when you mean "Please store a single instance of 
>>> this".  For example:
>>
>> I think private storage is not PEP but some other profile of pubsub, 
>> which perhaps has some features in common with PEP (e.g., filtered 
>> notifications) but not others (e.g., unlike PEP the default access 
>> model is whitelist with the whitelist empty since only the owner needs 
>> to have access, and multiple items are allowed since we care about 
>> storage rather than pure eventing). Perhaps this can be handled by the 
>> previous suggestion of "+private" on the end of the NodeID (I'm still 
>> a bit leery about that since pubsub nodes in general are not supposed 
>> to have semantic meaning, but XEP-0060 does say that such meaning is 
>> OK for particular applications of pubsub). I am in the midst of 
>> clarifying the relationship between pubsub and PEP, so hopefully that 
>> will help us understand which features can be re-used and which 
>> features need to be newly defined in order to create the new private 
>> node functionality.
> 
> I'm suggesting that the single-item-ness of a node is orthogonal from 
> its private-ness.  For example, I might only ever want to publish a 
> single geoloc, even though that's not private.

I'm suggesting that the agree-ed-ness of my thinking with your thinking 
lacked clear-ed-ness. We're in violent agreement.

/psa

-------------- 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/20070607/bd9c831b/smime.bin