[Standards] Link-Local Messaging comments

Sjoerd Simons sjoerd at luon.net
Thu Mar 22 14:51:32 UTC 2007


On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:47:16PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> If we don't use txtvers then it's unnecessary. But it would be helpful 
> to better define the status of each TXT record. Here's what I would say:
> 
> RECOMMENDED
> 
> 1st
> email
> ext
> jid
> last
> node
> ver
> txtvers (hardcoded to "1")

I'd actually make most of this list optional, except for txtvers which should 
be deprecated. node, last, ver probably should be only there if the client
supports discovery, thus i'd say optional, otoh you could say that supporting
discovery is recommended :) 

> OPTIONAL
> msg
> nick

As nick is what ``should'' ends up in the roster, it might make sense to
recommend this?

> phsh
> status

Might make sense to recommend. Also please document which status a client 
which a status field has (salut currently assumes avail, gajim offline)

> vc

Should be deprecated imho.

> 
> DEPRECATED
> port.p2pj
> 
> What do you think?

I'm not sure how you grouped these. If i may guess, you gave priority to the
fields ``required'' by some of the current implementations.

I looked at it without considering current implementations. In which case 
nick should really be recommended as that's what should be presented to the
end-user.  (and maybe  status, node, ver and ext but see comments above for
that)

Things like 1st, last, email and jid  are things which the end-user really
needs to decide if he wants to publish them, so i don't think it makes sense to
recommend those.

I'm not sure which way of looking at it is more correct though :)

  Sjoerd
-- 
Space is to place as eternity is to time.
		-- Joseph Joubert



More information about the Standards mailing list