[standards-jig] LAST CALL: Service Discovery (JEP-0030)

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Fri Dec 6 20:38:04 UTC 2002


Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Alexy:
>> E.g. clients can't send replies from any JID except
>> user at server/resource.  So if we want to make such
>> hierarchy, then this will look strange that replies comes
>> not from JID they sended to...

> Ah!  Now that makes sense to me.  I didn't quite see what the fuss
> was until now.
> I think this is actually an addressing problem, and not necessarily
> (yet) a disco problem.
> Imagine a Jabber client that is also providing non-IM services (like
> xmlrpc endpoints, etc).
[munch]
> I guess the question is, do we need to pause disco development while
> we solve the addressing issue?

Alexy/Hildjj

It seems to me that disco could easily take these types of jids into account
without significantly changing the protocol (unless I'm missing something).
I agree that it seems that the addressing issues must be solved before
addressing how that change impacts Disco. I would think it would also have
the potential to impact a lot of other JEPs and protocols. We'd have to
cross all of those other bridges in addition. I don't think we should hold
up disco for this reason. (of course, my $0.02)

pgm.




More information about the Standards mailing list