Hi Goffi!

Thanks for that PEP suggestion. I wonder if the use-case is indeed simplified by using a PEP service for the domain itself: consumers of the data would still need to perform an additional verification, right?

Instead of checking if the service advertises the serverinfo feature, consumers need to verify that the service is a PEP-service for the domain itself - which I think is basically done by checking for a _different_ feature?

Offering more than one way that 'opt-in' can be verified by a consumer complicates implementations. That complexity could be 'solved' by mandating exactly one of the options, but in that case the PEP solution is likely to be least supported by current server implementations. I would favor the existing option because of that.

As for the suggestion to switch to using the Clark notation for the new disco/info field: In my reading XEP-0068 mandates it only for fields not registered by the XSF itself. That doesn't apply to the field added by this pubsub-serverinfo XEP. That doesn't mean that we _cannot_ use Clark notation, of course, but what would be the benefit of moving to a Clark notation? I don't think it does away with the awkwardness of having either multiple XEP-0128-defined dataform-extensions, or merging them into one. I'm not immediately seeing a benefit of using Clark notation here.

I love to hear your thoughts on this!

Kind regards,

  Guus

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:32 AM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
It’s also worth adding that it would make sense to have a PEP service for the
server itself (i.e., at `example.org` instead of `user@example.org`), which
would simplify several use cases, including the XEP-0485 one. This would avoid
the problem stated in § 7 Privacy Considerations:

> The mere presence of an applicable pub-sub node MUST NOT be used for Service
> Discovery purposes, as under common service configuration, non-administrative
> users are allowed to create such nodes.

As with a PEP for the server itself, non-administrative users could not create
anything.

This PEP for server itself idea was already proposed by Mathieu Pasquet with
an earlier version of XEP-0455.

Best,
Goffi_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org