[standards-jig] disco, x:data, etc...

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Thu Feb 20 21:28:53 UTC 2003


I will make changes to JEP-0050 to remove the "extension" requirement
for command payloads.

But adding a node attribute to IQ (and presence, and message) is not a
simple task.  This would require the approval of the XMPP-WG, which is
extremely doubtful because of the nature of JIDs.  If you've followed it
at all, you should know that even "simple tasks" often take weeks/months
to reach consensus, and are often as not discarded.

But let's put aside the above, and go onto the "spirit" and "intent" of
things.  The "node" attribute of disco was never intended for
addressing.  It was to report on *NON-ADDRESSIBLE* items.  If you have
something you want addressed, you give it a unique JID.  Even one of the
JEP-0030 authors came forward to state exactly this.

The true root to your problems is that you have written software that
does not follow specifications, and want the specs changed to fix your
broken implementation.

The issues you have with ejabberd are implementation issues, not
standards issues.  The fact that you are refusing to follow these
standards has made your arguments irrelevant.


-  LW

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 11:13, Alexey Shchepin wrote:
> Hello, Matthew!
> 
> On 20 Feb 2003 09:04:53 -0800, you said:
> 
>  MAM> I request that you again read JEP-0050 before discounting it.  Your first
>  MAM> argument against x-commands is not valid,
> 
> Agreed, but "The payload can be any elements in an extension namespace" still
> says that <command/> can't contain all namespaces,
> 
>  MAM> and the second is vague.
> 
> [...]
> 
>  MAM> Now for the second argument.  What exactly in x-commands is "hard
>  MAM> processing from both client and server side"?
> 
> Not hard, it "more hard" that it can be to solve one simple task: to address IQ
> to node.
> 
>  MAM> So far, you have brought forth concrete issues with "sessionid" and
>  MAM> "status":
> 
>  MAM> 1) "sessionid" is currently required.  It's for tracking command
>  MAM> execution, in much the same way that web application servers (e.g.
>  MAM> Jakarta-Tomcat, WebLogic) use a similar variable.  Allow me go further
>  MAM> into this for the requester (aka "client-side"; 1.A) and the responder
>  MAM> (aka "server-side"; 1.B).
> 
> [...]
> 
> I not say that x-commands are bad, but they are bad to solve task of addressing
> to node, when we not want to track session, or to know status, etc...  This is
> separate things, so I prefer to see how your JEP solves its task, but not
> addressing to node.  IMHO this is separate task.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
-- 

Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net

- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)




More information about the Standards mailing list