[standards-jig] comments on JEP-0060

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Sat Jan 18 01:42:21 UTC 2003


> <blockquote>
> * Any node configuration available MUST be done using the x-data protocol.
> What this means is that in some cases of pubsub, a node MAY not have any
> configuration. In those cases, the server MUST respond to the iq-get for the
> config form with an error-501: Not Implemented.
> </blockquote>

I think the argument isn't so much about using x:data, as it is about
*only* using x:data, and *only* allowing configuration in-band to Jabber
(as the above language implies).

I suggest something like the following language as a possible
compromise:

***
Any in-band node configuration available MUST support use of the x:data
protocol.  If in-band configuration is not available, the server MUST
respond to the IQ-get for the config with a 501: Not Implemented
***

This change *MIGHT* make life slightly more difficult for the
implementation that supports multiple methods of node configuration,
since it does leave "to the implementor" how exactly to trigger
non-x:data, in-band configuration.  It also does not preclude
"out-of-band" mechanisms, such as web-based forms.

Further, to trigger an alternative in-band configuration mechanism,
since we have disco nearing ACTIVE, and a proposal for feature
negotiation on the table (JEP-0020).  How exactly to blend this in I'll
leave as an exercise for the reader.


-- 

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