[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Roster Versioning
stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Mar 17 16:31:06 UTC 2008
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Mar 17 15:22:28 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Pedro Melo wrote:
>> > Lets not abuse the meaning of <message> just because we like their
>> > network properties, like we abused <presence> in the past because it
>> > broadcasts well.
> Absolutely. So I'm looking forward to seeing the update to XEP-0060
> which changes PubSub pushes from being <message/> to <iq/>, in (for
> example) section 18.104.22.168.
> Or, alternately, could someone explain to me why the use of <message/>
> stanzas for the 22.214.171.124 case is not "abuse", whereas would be. Looks to
> me like they're the same use-case.
Very funny. :P
We use messages there in part because using IQs would require knowing
the full JID (and stock pubsub services do not know that).
But that's neither here nor there. The question is whether:
(1) acking an occasional roster push from the server to the client
(where BTW the server *does* know your full JID) is a serious problem
that we need to solve because it wastes large amounts of bandwidth
(2) sending roster pushes via <message/> is a pretty optimization that
is more elegant than what we developed in 1999, but it fundamentally
I think (2) obtains. Therefore I think it's just fine to keep IQs for
roster pushes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards