[Standards] XEP-0060: be more consistent with reply #106

Ralph Meijer ralphm at ik.nu
Mon Oct 5 18:12:30 UTC 2015

On 2015-10-05 10:48, Stefan Strigler wrote:
> Hey there,
> when implementing parts of XEP-0060 I came across a maybe inconsistency
> when it's about unsubscribing from a Node (Section 6.2.2
> - http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#subscriber-unsubscribe).
> If we'd allow to also have a the resulting subscription element in the
> response, the implementation can be kept more generic, you always reply
> with the resulting status of the subscription, no matter if it was a
> subscribe or an unsubscribe. 
> Thus my PR at
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/106
> I am aware that for unsubscribing the additional information given is
> redundant. That's why I changed it to MAY after I first suggested a
> SHOULD there.

Hey Stefan,

While I appreciate the suggestion, if the goal is to make the
implementation more consistent, how would you deal with entities that
don't return that element on the receiving end? Especially given you
suggest making it optional. I'd say that the potential gains are highest
for pubsub clients, but if you can't rely on a server giving that
element always, there's no gain, really. It doesn't even matter that
much if it is a MAY or SHOULD.



More information about the Standards mailing list