Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Ralph Meijer
On 17-02-2020 14:58, Matthew Wild wrote: [..] > > If we have to handle the case where there is no available device to handle the feature, what is this protocol to be used for? I don't think there's a way that all cases can be handled perfectly. I want to expand my original use case with

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Matthew Wild
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:25, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:05, Matthew Wild wrote: >> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 12:00, Dave Cridland wrote: >> > (3) is different; I'm unconvinced that we ever want to allow a third party >> > to know the details of what clients exist (though

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Matthew Wild
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:24, Ralph Meijer wrote: > > > > On 17-02-2020 13:44, Matthew Wild wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:14, Ralph Meijer wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 17-02-2020 13:04, Matthew Wild wrote: > >>> I really don't want to just design an account capabilities system > >>>

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:05, Matthew Wild wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 12:00, Dave Cridland wrote: > > (3) is different; I'm unconvinced that we ever want to allow a third > party to know the details of what clients exist (though ClientInitKeys will > reveal that to some degree). But we do

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Ralph Meijer
On 17-02-2020 13:44, Matthew Wild wrote: On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:14, Ralph Meijer wrote: On 17-02-2020 13:04, Matthew Wild wrote: I really don't want to just design an account capabilities system without some real concrete use-cases that demonstrate it's our best option. Ok,

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Matthew Wild
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:14, Ralph Meijer wrote: > > > > On 17-02-2020 13:04, Matthew Wild wrote: > > I really don't want to just design an account capabilities system > > without some real concrete use-cases that demonstrate it's our best > > option. > > Ok, concrete use case from my time at

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Ralph Meijer
On 17-02-2020 13:04, Matthew Wild wrote: I really don't want to just design an account capabilities system without some real concrete use-cases that demonstrate it's our best option. Ok, concrete use case from my time at VEON: calling. In the situation where most/all of your "known

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Matthew Wild
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 12:00, Dave Cridland wrote: > (3) is different; I'm unconvinced that we ever want to allow a third party to > know the details of what clients exist (though ClientInitKeys will reveal > that to some degree). But we do want to indicate if, for example, "all" our > clients

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Philipp Hörist
Hi, Am Mo., 17. Feb. 2020 um 12:12 Uhr schrieb Ralph Meijer : > > One thing I'm concerned about in general is what happens if I start > sending presence to my contacts. I would get a PEP notification for each > of my contacts with their capabilities. Bandwidth-wise having hashes > here helps,

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Ralph Meijer
On 17-02-2020 09:57, Dave Cridland wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 12:49, Ralph Meijer > wrote: > Have you considered special disco nodes on the account that get > synthesized by the server based on the disco information from > registered devices? I wondered about that.

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-17 Thread Dave Cridland
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 12:49, Ralph Meijer wrote: > Hace you considered special disco nodes on the account that get > synthesized by the server based on the disco information from registered > devices? > I wondered about that. We could have a pair of disco nodes as well, yes. > Do you think

Re: [Standards] Offline Feature Negotiation and Device Lists

2020-02-16 Thread Ralph Meijer
Hace you considered special disco nodes on the account that get synthesized by the server based on the disco information from registered devices? Do you think there's value in the ability to subscribe to this information via PEP? -- ralphm From: Dave Cridland