[standards-jig] calendaring?

Dave dave at dave.tj
Thu Mar 14 00:16:01 UTC 2002


Reply inline:

 - Dave

Julian Missig wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 18:40, Dave wrote:
> > Reply inline:
> > 
> > Julian Missig wrote: > > The current routing method. I was just proposing
> > using browse for very > basic routing. If resource x is the only resource
> > which support > jabber:iq:negiotiate:video, then it shouldn't be sent
> > to resource y.  ...but the current routing method is rather severely
> > limited in its ability to accomodate multiple simultaneous resources :-(
> > 
> > > > Also, in your previous message what you you mean by "Furthermore, >
> > "enhancing" the browse method to support clients would probably create
> > a > large argument later"? My proposal would require no changes to the
> > > browse protocol, it's just an augmentation of the current routing >
> > method.  I said "enhancing" because I knew that saying enhancing (with
> > no quotes) would trigger an argument.  The end result is that you're
> > expanding the browsing protocol to include servers browsing clients,
> > and making routing decisions based on the results.  Let's not bicker
> > about wording ;-)
> 
> Howso? There's nothing preventing a server or server component from
> browsing a client right now. The browse JEP makes no restrictions
> against it.
...but the routing spec says that the server shouldn't use the result of
a client browse to affect routing, so what use is browsing the client???

> 
> > 
> > > > For reference, the current routing method is: > 1) Specified resource
> > > 2) priority > 3) most recently logged in ...and none of those are
> > terribly useful if I want to have all videoconferencing events sent to
> > a particular resource, without having to tell all my friends to use that
> > resource explicitely :-(
> 
> Right, which is why I want to expand that... see the properly-named
> thread "Server-side packet routing" ;)
Well, you disagree with me about something slightly fundamental in that
post, so there's rather little to argue about here.  You don't believe
clients should have the right to tell the server how to route stuff.
You may be right, but I'd hate to have a proxy be the only workable
solution for users who want to have _real_ control over what clients
receive what events, and I don't think that's a very insane request for
a reasonable user to make.

> 
> Julian
> -- 
> email: julian at jabber.org
> jabber:julian at jabber.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list