[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Roster Versioning

Alexander Gnauck gnauck at ag-software.de
Wed Mar 5 07:07:20 UTC 2008

Richard Dobson schrieb:
>> +1. I can't see any reason for the spec to require more than a 
>> increasing version number.
> I would prefer if it were just an opaque string, certainly as far as the 
> client in concerned there is no need for it to do anything other than 
> store the most recent version identifier it has received and then return 
> that to the server when required (i.e. at login), only the server needs 
> to know what to do with it and this should certainly only be RECOMMENDED 
> or SUGGESTED/MAYBE and not MUST. What would happen in cases were the 
> version number needs to be reset to 0 because someone has such a busy 
> roster that over time they exhast the maximum integer value?, or if 
> maybe in future server implementors want to compress it somehow into hex 
> or something similar, it would be far far better to leave this flexible 
> and upto the server implementor on how they format the version identifier.

yes I think we should recommend a an increasing integer. But should 
allow any string. So if some server vendor prefers hash codes or GUIDs 
for the versioning then this is fine for me too.


More information about the Standards mailing list