20 Jan
2026
20 Jan
'26
10:56 a.m.
On 20 Jan 2026, at 10:17, Daniel Gultsch
<daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
Hi,
I'm going to make one last argument and then I think we will have exchanged enough
arguments for council to make a decision later today.
This is an experiment. We both agree that we need more implementational experience. For
now we don't really know if roster size or crypto overhead and crypto operations will
be be the bottle neck.
I don’t think this is true. We do know that there are rosters in the wild that are large
enough to realistically be limited by pubsub item/stanza size limits. I don’t like
one-item-per-item at all, but I don’t think one-item-per-roster is viable.
/K
However if we don't know, the most sensible thing from my POV is to keep it simple.
Do the minimum viable thing. Take the existing roster, with its existing features wrt
groups and stick it into one encrypted item. Allow us to reuse existing parsers. Make a
drop in replacement for clear text rosters.
Cheers
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org