[Standards-JIG] Re: Historical XEPs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Nov 16 22:28:34 UTC 2006

Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>>> Yes, XML Storage doesn't need PEP: it just needs well-know PubSub node.
>>> But if we already decided to have IM-PubSub for PEP, it doesn't make
>>> sense to write another spec for private nodes and expect server
>>> developers to implement it.
>> In fact it's already pretty much in PEP, since a PEP node with an access
>> model of "whitelist" and no entities on the whitelist effectively
>> results in a node that enables private data storage. However, nothing in
>> XEP-0163 (or elsewhere) really explains how that would work in detail.
> Wasn't this added just to make private storage via PEP possible? ;)
> It wasn't a part of older PEP, the extended-presence PEP. Now we have
> PErsonal Pubsub ;)

Well, the "whitelist" access model is part of the core pubsub protocol.
And the node owner should always be allowed to subscribe or retrieve
items. So a "whitelist" access model with no subscribers other than the
other should enable the owner to use that node however they want, i.e.,
personal storage / eventing for the owner's resources. Or so it seems to me.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061116/0a304d99/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list