[standards-jig] UPDATED: Commands (JEP-0050)

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Tue Jan 21 19:55:48 UTC 2003


On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 11:35, Casey Crabb wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> A few comments:
> When getting information on a command using disco the jep has the
> following protocol:
> 
> <iq type='get'
> ~    from='requester at domain'
> ~    to='responder at domain'>
> ~  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
> ~      node='config'/>
> </iq>
> 
> The part I have problems with is node='config'. Since this request isn't
> namespaced to commands its not obvious that we're trying to get
> information about a command and not information about client
> configuration or something else. My recommendation is that all command
> nodes are named as a sub-namespace of the command namespace.
> Example:
> 
> config would become http://jabber.org/protocol/commands#config
> 
> So the full new request would look like:
> 
> <iq type='get'
> ~    from='requester at domain'
> ~    to='responder at domain'>
> ~  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
> ~      node='http://jabber.org/protocol/commands#config'/>
> </iq>
> 
> This will prevent help collision and confusion with other nodes in
> disco. The response with the list of commands will have to be changed as
> well to match.

I have no problem with this, provided there's more consensus/agreement. 
I had originally contemplated this, but a Council member or two thought
it was too confusing.  Any opinions from the disco authors would be
greatly appreciated.

Regardless, I still want to have the fixed "parent" node
(http://jabber.org/protocol/commands).  I want command lists to be
quickly retrievable, and any safe assumptions that can be made with
respect to this should be. IMO, this a pretty safe assumption to make.

> 
> Secondly in Example 6, "the responder MUST respond with a 403
> 'Forbidden' error."  -while I agree that it should be this way for
> compliance, implementations should not rely on getting any response from
> the other side.

That MUST can be changed to SHOULD.  On this one, I wish there was
something stronger than SHOULD but milder than MUST (-:

> questions, comments?
> 
> - --
> Casey
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD4DBQE+LaDsUidG/HUEju8RAqjhAKCpDHf8ch89C87Ef8f8NoYf6DV9hwCVGhgD
> mjoBCmou0dllQSuJZcsmJQ==
> =Ai6W
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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