[Standards] Re: publish+configure again

Magnus Henoch mange at freemail.hu
Thu Mar 29 21:29:39 UTC 2007


Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> writes:

> 6. The typical publish request may become more verbose in PEP use
> cases (especially if clients always do publish+configure, which is not
> necessary but they probably will to be safe, unless they care deeply
> about packet size).

I think clients should do this only if they want a more restrictive
node configuration than the default.  I would like to be able to
configure some nodes as "roster" or "whitelist", without that
configuration being clobbered by another client that thinks it should
be "presence".

That is, clients would in practice include a <configure/> element only
in exceptional cases, such as publishing to a supposedly "private"
node.

> Rough consensus is good. Some running code would be even better so
> that we could test this out and see what some of the issues might
> be. Perhaps we can get at least one client and server developer to
> commit to coding this into their PEP implementations for
> experimentation? That would be quite helpful when the Council decides
> to vote on version 1.1.

bazarhoff.cd.chalmers.se is now up and running with this change.  It
is completely untested; feel free to ask me if it doesn't behave.  The
patch is also on the web page:
http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~henoch/text/ejabberd-pep.html

-- 
Magnus
JID: legoscia at jabber.cd.chalmers.se




More information about the Standards mailing list