[Standards-JIG] Re: Roster Subscription Synchronisation

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Sat Sep 11 13:13:32 UTC 2004

>> Is it just me or is this protocol not virtually identical to just using
>> JEP-0093?.
>> The only thing missing from JEP-0093 is the use case explaining how to 
>> use
>> JEP-0093 with transports. Whats the point in it being like this?
> No it's identical. JEP-0093 can't actually do the Roster Subscription
> Synchronisation. All it can do is push out contacts, it says nothing about
> their subscription status on the legacy network.

Why does it need to? The fact that it is subscribing to your presence along 
with this extension shows that it is already in your contact list of the 
legacy network, there is no need to express the subscription status IMO.

>> If you really want to have the information attached to the presence 
>> (still
>> the wrong place IMO) in a way that is virtually identical to JEP-0093 you
>> should at least use JEP-0093 for this instead of inventing your own new
>> protocol element.
> I don't know what you mean here. Do you mean using the JEP0093 namespace 
> as
> the namespace for the x tag? I don't think that makes much sense, because
> JEP0093 allows you to send multiple item tags, whereas this protocol
> specifically states that you mustn't. Only one item tag per presence 
> packet.

Yes JEP-0093 allows you to send multiple items in it, but there is nothing 
stopping you from writing a use case for transports that restricts it to 
only allow one.

> The main difference between this protocol and JEP0093 is that -93 is 
> designed
> to push contacts out to the user. This protocol is designed to be an
> extension to the existing presence mechanism, to let a client know what
> subscriptions have already been made on the legacy service by its user.

Yes and I dont see why you cant just use JEP-0093 instead, especially 
considering even you admit its identical.

> Tijl Houtbeckers put it very succinctly in an email to me:
>> What the <import/> tag really tells you is: "this is a subscription
>> request packet you already approved on another network, thus there is no
>> point in denying it. even if you deny it, people on that network will
>> still see you as long as the transport sees your presence". A JEP-0093
>> packet says nothing.. and *should* say nothing about presence
>> subscriptions.
> Hopefully that will clear up why JEP-0093 isn't a good fit for what I'm
> actually trying to do.

No it doesnt at all.


More information about the Standards mailing list