[Standards-JIG] Roster Subscription Synchronisation

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Sep 15 08:27:37 UTC 2004

>> I did not ignore what you wrote, infact I pointed out why what you are 
>> trying to do doesnt really make sence and can cause problems if the 
>> client does not support your spec. IMO making a false subscription to 
>> try and communicate a subscription meaning the reverse doesnt make sence 
>> and thus is wrong and some other method should be found to transmit the 
>> "to" subscriptions, such as using JEP-0093.
> What are saying anyway Richard? Did you say 'This is exactly the problem 
> it can end up creating a "both" subscription' or that you think it's 
> bad/unclean/hacky protocol? We know which one right? And you and I both 
> know it *does* work, since it's clearly put there in my reply. So instead 
> you rave on about protocol. Then a bit later on we talk about protocol, I 
> put forth why you can't call this an unclean hack and instead of answering 
> to that you bring on the "doesn't work" routine again.

Yes and you just brought on your routine of not answering my concerns over 
the falsified subscriptions not being the right way and just trying to 
ignore them to try and make the problem go away instead of addressing it.

> This is too typical of trying to discuss with you on this topic. Not only 
> do you have a hard time remembering what I said (even if you did accept it 
> before) you also seem to forget what you've said yourself. Thanks for 
> trying I guess, you put about as much time into this discussion as me (and 
> we've been able to come to an agreement in the past), but if you don't 
> mind I'll save my energy from now on for more constructive discussions 
> that can help this proposal and the community forward instead or running 
> in circles after you.

Yes if you do not want to even take the time to answer my concerns in a 
satisfactory way other than to simply dismiss it saying it works so it must 
be the right way then I see no point in continuting this discussion with you 
either as you obviously dont want to even try to fix the problems on this 
spec. Hopefully you will come you your senses when your spec gets rejected 
over this rather serious problem because im sure I wont be the only one who 
has a problem with it.


More information about the Standards mailing list