[Standards] XEP-0258 and XEP-0060

Kurt Zeilenga Kurt.Zeilenga at Isode.COM
Tue Nov 22 13:33:36 UTC 2011

On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:

> On Mon Nov 21 20:43:30 2011, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:52 AM, Ashley Ward wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Finally, I'd point (back) to my Last Call comments - from back when
>> >> the specification *did* have a PubSub section - where I pointed out
>> >> that the catalogue work needs work to cover not only jid, but
>> >> jid+node. Not a major change, but a change nonetheless.
>> >
>> > I didn't realise this used to be I the spec! I've just read the old spec
>> > (v0.9) and it's pretty much exactly what I was thinking of above (with the
>> > <securitylabel/> within the <item/> which violates the schema for pubsub).
>> > I guess it was removed at that time because it's actually not that easy!
>> PubSub Security label spec was removed from XEP 258 simply because I and others did not believe it had enough implementation experience to garner Draft status.
>> It's my intent to reintroduce the spec as a separate XEP 258 and, at least initially, without significant syntax or semantical changes to the spec.
>> I'll consider the possibility of adding siblings to the <item/> in the <items/> element.  But I hate order dependent stuff.  I rather use some id= attributes (on the item) and a target= attributes on the associated meta-data element to link them... and just suggest they be sent together.
> One label per publish suits me.

Though that can be made to work with digital signatures, it would be slightly odd.

>> As far as Dave's concern about changing labels, I note that we do need to well support item visibility changes in XEP 60.  I don't have any specific suggestions on how here.
> I had a label change concern?

It's something I read into "it's going to need to decide what to do if different items do and do not pass the ACDF."  Specifically, "different times" into that under the assumption that authorization factors can change.

-- Kurt

More information about the Standards mailing list