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

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Wed Feb 26 17:00:00 UTC 2003


I believe the change being sought is:

<blockquote>
> Within Service Discovery, the value of the node attribute does not have semantic meaning; from the
> perspective of Service Discovery, a node is an identifier that is associated
> with a JID and for which the JID can provide information. Any semantic meaning
> is provided by the protocol spoken by the JID for a particular application.
> </blockquote>
> 

The original text is still somewhat ambiguous:  if a node "may or may
not" have semantic meaning, which is it?  If the semantic meaning is
added, what happens if it's not understood?  To me, the above clarifies
this better.

If a *responding* disco entity wants to add semantic meaning, that's
their prerogative, but *requesting* entities SHOULD NOT derive any such
meaning.  IMO, if more meaning is necessary, then that's what another
namespace should be for (sic x-commands).

To demonstrate why I consider the above to be more correct, I point to
(one of) the reason(s) for changing from revision 0.8 to revision 0.9 of
JEP-0050[1]; this originally called for adding semantic value, but was
seen as *undesirable* (possibly veto grounds?).  This was an application
of disco that added semantic meaning, but the resulting discussion about
it nullified adding such semantics.

We need to be clear on this (overrated?) point of contention:  If nodes
*can* have semantic meaning, then the original text is fine, but then
rev 0.8 of JEP-0050 is valid (and maybe even more desirable).  If nodes
*cannot* have semantic meaning [outside of a specific implementation;
e.g. a disco responder], then the original text really needs to be
changed to something like that above.


-  LW

[1]
http://www.jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2003-02-07.html

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 08:11, Peter Millard wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > I still feel "node" has not been fully addressed and is still
> > ambigious. Right before example number 5 there is a statement about
> > "may be associated" thats not strong enough. It should read something
> > like this: "The requesting entity SHOULD NOT assume anything about the
> > 'node' only that it is a unique string/attribute to address non
> > addressable things. Node semantics are left up to the implementor so
> > long as the requesting entity follows the previous"
> 
> I'm confused... Under example 2 is verbiage fully describing the meaning of the
> node attribute.
> 
> <blockquote>
> The value of the node attribute may or may not have semantic meaning; from the
> perspective of Service Discovery, a node is merely something that is associated
> with a JID and for which the JID can provide information. Any semantic meaning
> is provided by the protocol spoken by the JID for a particular application.
> </blockquote>
> 
> Does the last sentence not specify that the node semantics are not specified by
> the disco protocol???
> 
> I think this is fully spelled out throughout the document. Please re-read and
> make sure you're referencing the latest rev.
> 
> pgm.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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