[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.

Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534 Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Fri Jun 25 19:46:37 UTC 2004

I did read the mtg notes and though there was a bit about item updates it still not sufficient because it doesn't cover node updates and does cover the possibility that some people may what read-only nodes. But I shouldn't need new arguments, the old ones are still valid. The specification is ambiguous in numerous places. When a specification uses language like "possibilities include" means its ambiguous and a client can not rely on any specifict behavior. Additionaly there is no provision in section 11.3 determine via a disco query what behavior is available.

For example 11.3 states:

"NodeIDs MUST be treated as unique identifiers. Implementations may treat publish requests with the same NodeID differently. Possibilities include:

    * The first publish succeeds, and others with the same ID fail.
    * All publishes succeed, each one overwriting the older item.
    * Each item is accumulated in some kind of list. ItemIDs are used to indicate and request specific items. The service would assign ItemIDs to enforce uniqueness of ItemIDs.

These options MAY be configurable per node if desired in the pubsub service.

If item identifiers are used, they MUST be treated as unique within the scope of the node. NodeID + ItemID MUST be unique within a given service, and MUST specify a single published item to a single node. Multiple publishes to the same ItemID MAY result in behavior similar to that stated above for nodes (except that multiple items in a list MUST NOT have the same ItemID, since ItemIDs MUST be unique within the scope of a node)."

There is also a lack of clarity on how notifications (subscriptions) work when updates to child nodes and items occur.

As for why I wasn't at the chat session, I was in San Diego at another mtg (oddly enough with Matt Gordon of Jabber Inc) trying to drum up support for XMPP in DOD.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org 
> [mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Meijer
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:26 AM
> To: Jabber protocol discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:46:25AM -0400, Fletcher, Boyd C. 
> J9C534 wrote:
> >  
> > We still have problems ...
> >
> > [...]
> Please, read the stuff we discussed wednesday. Then, try to 
> come up with (new) arguments instead of copy/pasting from 
> your previous messages. You obviously haven't convinced 
> anyone. Btw. where were you, last wednesday, when we 
> discussed the items you are interested in?
> --
> Groetjes,
> Ralphm
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list