[Standards] more obsolete specs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat May 30 01:17:04 UTC 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciao Fabio! :)

On 5/29/09 5:00 PM, Fabio Forno wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> for historical purposes, so I'd be fine with keeping that as Deprecated.
>> It seems to me that both XEPs 93 and 144 (which define different flavors
>> of roster item exchange) are not widely implemented, so I'm agnostic
>> about those.
> 
> XEP 144  is useful but it has two problems:
> 
> - the result iq is just an ack saying that the receiver has received
> the roster modification, be we don't know if the user has accepted the
> new items or not (in some cases it can be done indirectly, but it is
> not easy)
> - there should be more sophisticated way to negotiate the level of
> trust with the roster modifier (e.g. in a Facebook gateway we don't
> want to accept again the contacts since we already did it)
> 
> Moreover, if we move from a pure IM scenario to a platform for
> offering services, I think that XEP-144 is crucial for automating the
> interaction with different service providers. For example in a
> geolocal based application I don't want users to continuously search
> for contacts and approve them while moving, but I'd like to have
> roster group which is continuously updated with the services available
> in the current context.

Yes, I agree. Is XEP-0144 good enough, or do we need to (1) improve it
or (2) define yet another approach to solving the problem?

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkogiRAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwgbACg795vRZgjIhf8s5WIAtBec2uP
oYAAn0hazyQEgfRjlp1HWMWAqDJeU78l
=HQe3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list