[standards-jig] gateway handling of legacy contact lists
JHildebrand at jabber.com
Mon Dec 15 19:44:08 UTC 2003
Unfortunately, all of the transport-modifies-the-users-roster stuff will
only work if you are using a transport on your own server. There's no way
we should allow a transport running on a remote domain to have direct access
to the user's roster.
I think that having an account on jabber.org, but using a transport on
example.com should still be a possibility when we're done.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Curtis [mailto:pcurtis at terrapin.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:28 AM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [standards-jig] gateway handling of legacy contact lists
> On Saturday, December 13, 2003, at 08:36 AM, maqi at jabberstudio.org
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Paul Curtis wrote:
> >> I agree. The jabber:x:roster is not the optimal solution. However,
> >> JEP-0100 Section 8 does allow for the use of presence with
> the 'type'
> >> attribute 'subscribed'.
> > JEP-0100 only documents current practice. Server
> implementing the XMPP
> > specs will (or better, SHOULD) drop these incoming 'subscribed'
> > packets breaking the mechanism described in JEP-0100. This
> is why this
> > thread started.
> Currently, sending the subscribed packets is the only
> reliable method.
> The servers should drop these packets, and in the future, I
> suspect they will. For now, it's the only thing we can do.
> As for you other suggestions .... +1. There isn't a reliable
> way to extract some or all of the user's roster into the
> transport. This is a large stumbling block, and should
> probably be documented as an extension to JEP-0100, or as
> part of JEP-0100.
> The syncing of rosters between legacy and jabber systems
> should be handled by the transport as much as possible. That
> was why I commented on Joe's suggestion of the transport
> keeping the last know list of legacy contacts.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards