[Standards] Service discovery for clients

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Jul 8 07:44:56 CDT 2008


JabberForum wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre;1620 Wrote: 
>> I think that's pretty close to a best practice. Your recommendation #1a
>>
>> is not much different from the intent of negative presence priority in
>>
>> RFC 3921. #1b doesn't work now because we haven't finalized RAP, but we
>>
>> need to do so. #2a says that an entity should publish its capabilities
>>
>> through a combination of caps (XEP-0115) and RAP (XEP-0168), which
>> seems 
>> good to me. #2b recommends mostly server handling of incoming stanzas 
>> based on client caps+RAP, which again seems reasonable (except that 
>> neither clients nor servers support RAP yet, and servers are not yet 
>> smart enough to use caps information in this way).
>>
>> Perhaps we need to write up a XEP about this? I'd be happy to help.
>>
>> /psa
> 
> Hello,
> 
> good, so I haven't say too much stupidities then. And yes I really
> think some good practice XEP could be helpful. Without it I fear
> implementers will continue not to take into account the importance of
> acting according entities' capacities.
> When you say "we", who is it? Because if it is me, I will write it but
> I have never done any. So yes, your help and advices are more than
> helpful. :-)

You and I can chat via IM about who does what. :)

/psa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080708/989c9047/attachment.bin 


More information about the Standards mailing list