[Standards] Removing PEP nodes?

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Thu Aug 16 12:58:27 UTC 2007


On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 13:09 +0200, Magnus Henoch wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> writes:
> 
> > Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, at 20:07, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> I'm currently implementing PEP into libpurple, and have some issue
> >>>> I can't quite find explained in the XEPs: How do I remove a
> >>>> personal event?
> >>>
> >>> I think you would use the syntax defined in XEP-0060:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#publisher-delete
> >>
> >> What should I supply as the item id? I don't have that value.
> >
> > Why not? You should have received it when the PEP service sent it to
> > you (the account owner automatically receives a copy).
> 
> The only reference to this that I can find is section 12.9 of
> XEP-0060, Auto-Subscribing Owners and Publishers, which says that the
> service MAY do so.  Did I miss some other place?  Is there anything
> PEP-specific that specifies this behaviour?

In both the current 1.0 (section 8) as well as the upcoming 1.1 version
of XEP-0163 [1], there is the mention of notifications to resources of
the node owner. The latter mentions that this is subject to filtered
notifications (section 10.2 of the upcoming 1.10 version of XEP-0060
[2]). It seems to me that what was meant is that your own account is
assumed to be in the group of entities that will receive notifications
when a resource sends the proper entity capabilities with +notify
suffixes.

Reading section 10 of XEP-0060 1.10pre5 again, I am wondering if the
implementations working on PEP on the server side actually implemented
it like this. As it is written now, I can have a node with identifier
'blah' that sends out notifications with geoloc payload. Clients sending
the http://jabber.org/protocol/geoloc+notify feature would also receive
these notifications. I am also wondering how clients would handle that.

On item identifiers, they are optional in the publish request, and if
not provided the server must generate an identifier when the node is
persistent. If a publisher should send along an item identifier depends
on how the node is supposed to be used.

We used to have an explicit 'current' item identifier for the different
extended presence specs, but these seem to have been removed. I always
assumed extended presence to have a more transient notion than one which
may persist a history of changes (as each publish gets a unique id if
you don't provide one). Peter, could you comment on this?

In general I think you should simply provide an identifier if you want
to be able to retract them at a later point in time. I don't think we
ever discussed how retraction works in the context of PEP.

[1] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0163-1.1.html
[2] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.10.html

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm




More information about the Standards mailing list