[Standards] [Roster|Data] Versioning

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Feb 20 03:04:12 UTC 2009

Matthew Wild wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> Curtis King wrote:
>>> On 19-Feb-09, at 1:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> I don't think the bandwidth difference is that big here, but I like the
>>>> idea of putting it in rfc3921bis so that more people implement it. ;-)
>>> +1
>>> Funny, I'm adding basic support for this right now.
>> Super. I'll update XEP-0237 again so that it's closer to what was in
>> version 0.3. :)
> Looks like I need to update my implementation :)

Super. Let's do some interop testing. :)

> I'm not really bothered by the format of the request. However I
> wouldn't myself have recommended for it to go into the RFCs,
> preferring to keep the core protocols as simple as possible. However
> this is just my personal opinion, I have no technical reasons to back
> it up :)

I tend to want to keep things out of the RFCs, too, but this seems quite
closely tied in with rosters so I think it's easier and less confusing
to specify it in rfc3921bis.

> That said, where does the stuff we discussed at the summit about
> fetching only particular roster groups for a session come in now? This
> is something I could see going into the RFCs, tying in a lot more
> closely with existing roster semantics.

Quite possibly. I haven't had a chance to think about that yet. Will do


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20090219/8fc00e7d/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list