[Standards] IQ Pubsub again (was Re: Fwd: Meeting minutes 2010-02-15)

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Fri Feb 19 08:01:16 UTC 2010

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 2/18/10 5:02 PM, Fabio Forno wrote:
>> Tuomas has been quicker than me. I confirm all the points, plus:
>> - even xep-184  does not guarantee reliability in a s2s scenario
> There are no *guarantees* of reliability even with IQs. The question is:
> how much reliability do you need, and does the use of <iq/> for
> notifications achieve that?

But IQs provide at least one guarantee that messages don't: in the
case of everything is ok (probably the most common case), you do get
and ack of delivery (the IQ result). <message>'s provide none.

And in the case where you do have delivery problems or dropped
stanzas, you can detect it easily with a timeout.

That is better than <message>.

>> - I don't see many compatibility issues, since <iq/> delivery is a
>> config option which must be turned on
> I think Kev is concerned about compatibility on the client side. The
> admin can enable <iq/> delivery on the service but a client might not be
> able to handle the notifications because it is expecting <message/>
> stanzas, not <iq/> stanzas. In that case the client will presumably
> return an IQ error.

I must have missed something but I though we where discussion a
subscription option that the *client* would enable, not the service
administrator. Hence only IQ-delivery supporting clients would ever
activate it.

Pedro Melo
xmpp:melo at simplicidade.org
mailto:melo at simplicidade.org

More information about the Standards mailing list