2009/2/24 Pavel Simerda :
>
> It has some flaws. See my post about subscriptions, please.
>
I've seen them. The difference is you are looking at the problems from
the server perspective. I'm concentrating on the client perspective
and human interface itself.
>> Originally, I wanted to propose mod
FYI:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Subject: Agenda 2009-02-25.
To: XMPP Council
http://xmpp.org/council/agendas/2009-02-25.html
/K
On Tue Feb 24 18:04:06 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > * resource conflicts should be handled consistently in servers
> >
> >
> It's not always possible to handle conflicts in the same way.
Could you please be more specific?
In the case of a split cluster, there's a number of possible
resolut
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:53:30 +0100
Jiří Zárevúcký wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've been thinking about the current subscription management in the
> XMPP-IM for some time now. I think it's not very well designed.
It has some flaws. See my post about subscriptions, please.
> For example, there's an
Pavel Simerda wrote:
* connection reuse for multiple s2s links would be a very useful
feature, ask Dave for details
Piggybacking.
Which is subtly broken in RFC 3920 - at least 50% of it.
makes 'target piggybacking' (different to)
unusable, as you risk the entire stream.
Please provide more
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:07:16 +0100
Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> *nod*
> >> Might be a problem if a server requires EXTERNAL, but this is rare
> >> in uncontrolled environments anyway.
> >>
> >> That would make 0178 c2s-only and it could be merged with 0257
> >>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:20:15 +
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Feb 24 10:10:38 2009, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> > Dave Cridland wrote:
> >> On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>> * bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
> >>> right after the opening tag from the initiato
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:10:38 +0100
Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >> * bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
> >> right after the opening tag from the initiator.
>
> Unidirectional S2S has been around for too long,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:14:13 +
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > * bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
> > right after the opening tag from the initiator.
> >
> >
> Well...
>
> What you need is to:
>
> a) Signal the ability of the re
Hi,
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
inconsistent.
You may view subscription information as a global distributed
database.
Subscription state between two JIDs, for example a...@a and b...@b are
stored
in two
Hello all.
I've been thinking about the current subscription management in the
XMPP-IM for some time now. I think it's not very well designed.
For example, there's an obvious redundancy in the roster pushes and
subscription stanzas. For (almost) every subscription update /
request, there is a pre
Dave Cridland wrote:
[snip]
*nod*
Might be a problem if a server requires EXTERNAL, but this is rare in
uncontrolled environments anyway.
That would make 0178 c2s-only and it could be merged with 0257 somehow.
That's possible. But then, 0178 should get merged with rfc3920bis.
That might be
On Tue Feb 24 11:05:50 2009, Philipp Hancke wrote:
1) do 0178 and add subsequent auth (including graceful failure)
2) do 0178 for the first authorization and use piggybacking (with
graceful failure again) for subsequent authorization... err...
verification
3) ignore any 0178 offers and do p
Dave Cridland wrote:
* bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
right after the opening tag from the initiator.
Unidirectional S2S has been around for too long, I do not see a real
gain in fixing that now.
This was discussed in Feb 2004 on the XMPPWG list:
http://mail.jabber.org/piperm
On Tue Feb 24 10:10:38 2009, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
* bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
right after the opening tag from the initiator.
Unidirectional S2S has been around for too long, I do not see a real
gai
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
* bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
right after the opening tag from the initiator.
Unidirectional S2S has been around for too long, I do not see a real
gain in fixing that now.
This was discussed in Feb 200
On Tue Feb 24 00:31:25 2009, Pavel Simerda wrote:
* bidirectional s2s could be announced in sent
right after the opening tag from the initiator.
Well...
What you need is to:
a) Signal the ability of the receiver to handle features sent by the
initiator.
b) Signal the ability of the i
17 matches
Mail list logo
