[Standards-JIG] Roster Subscription Synchronisation

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Sun Sep 12 20:00:21 UTC 2004


On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:02:45 +0100, Richard Dobson <richard at dobson-i.net>  
wrote:

> 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.

So you're saying JEP-0093 should be rewritten to use jabber:iq:roster,  
since it's virtually identical syntax?
The syntax is not exactly identical, and JEP-0093 explicitly requires  
something that SHOULD not be used here. Further more, it lacks one of the  
key properties (subscription). Even aside from that, much of the wording  
of JEP-0093 describes a very different use than that which we require.

So to summerize. We need the item data (particulary the part which  
JEP-0093 doesn't have; subscription) in the presence packet. As we've  
shown this is where at least the subscription data should be, because we  
are fixing a presence subsription related problem. Since JEP-0093 in it's  
current form is unusable (partly cause of that) for what we *do* fix with  
James proposal. Given that JEP-0093 would require a major rewrite to fit  
our requirment, in both the protocol spec and also the wording of the JEP,  
and that JEP-0093 is the living proof it's apperently not a crime to copy  
over the <item/> element without reusing an existing namespace, I do not  
see what benifit using JEP-0093 will bring.

The "proper" solution to this problem, is giving <item/> it's own  
namespace (since that's the part we want to reuse, not any of the things  
JEP-0093 adds). So if reusing existing specs and namespaces is import to  
you here, you better post to the XMPP-WG list about that before it's too  
late.



More information about the Standards mailing list