[Standards-JIG] pubsub access models
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Jan 3 23:59:10 UTC 2006
Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005, at 00:55, Hal Rottenberg wrote:
>> On 12/28/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>>> Also, which access model should be the default? Right now in my
>>> provisional text I have "open" as the default. That seems consistent
>>> with JEP-0060 as it stands today.
>> I think port 135 should be open by default, too. :) How about
>> "presence" instead? People who use IM will understand the concept
>> that someone has to be on your "buddy list" in order to see certain
>> types of information. The alternative of "open" would make sharing
>> this data more seamless, but could lead to unintended privacy issues.
> I think presence makes sense for im-related pubsub, which is pretty much
> what spps is all about.
> For generic pubsub, presence makes very little sense I think, does it? I
> don't know how to approach this discrepancy. If we can say in 60 that
> open is the default but that specific profiles of 60 can set other
> defaults, and then do so in the spps profile, that sounds good.
Yes, I think that makes sense. I'm defining this in JEP-0060 right now
so defaulting to open might make sense (though we might want to leave
this up to the implementation or deploy), but allowing other profiles
(mainly SPPS at this point) to default to presence or whatever would be
good. In any case I think presence is the right default for SPPS.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards