Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

2009-04-13 Thread Jiří Zárevúcký
Hi, I have a question about a particular scenario (it's a bit simplified, just for illustration). This is the initial state: query ver=300    item jid=conta...@jabber.org subscription=none /    item jid=conta...@jabber.org subscription=none /    ... /query Now magine you have four pushes in

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

2009-04-13 Thread Jiří Zárevúcký
Dne 13. duben 2009 19:18 Jiří Zárevúcký zarevucky.j...@gmail.com napsal(a): Hi, I have a question about a particular scenario (it's a bit simplified, just for illustration). . Ok, I probably just made an idiot from myself. I for some reason didn't realize that the item is still send

Re: [Standards] Problem after enabling MUC in ejabberd

2009-04-13 Thread Badlop
2009/4/2 imoracle imoracle.3pz...@no-mx.jabberforum.org: I am trying to dig into MUC protocol, but I have having problem on my very first step. I went to ejabberd.cfg and added the following for enabling group chat: Your question seems to be administering a Jabber server, so probably the

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

2009-04-13 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon Apr 13 18:18:39 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: Am I right? Yes, you are, well spotted. Any idea how to handle it fool-proof way without actually sending two interim pushes for contact1? Yes, you don't want to send two interim responses, since then servers would actually have to

[Standards] PubSub revisions

2009-04-13 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
FYI, I have started to process the ~100 emails that I've received over the last 6 months regarding the PubSub specification (XEP-0060). No matter whether the original message was sent to standards@xmpp.org or pub...@xmpp.org, I will post the reply to the pubsub@ list (because most of these items

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

2009-04-13 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/13/09 5:57 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Apr 13 18:18:39 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: Am I right? Yes, you are, well spotted. Any idea how to handle it fool-proof way without actually sending two interim pushes for contact1? Yes, you don't want to send two interim responses,

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0237 (Roster Versioning)

2009-04-13 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/13/09 6:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 4/13/09 5:57 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Apr 13 18:18:39 2009, Jiří Zárevúcký wrote: Or maybe just specify that the client must not store the new changes until everything is received. That's the simplest option, yes - we can just add that

Re: [Standards] various rfc3920bis feedback

2009-04-13 Thread Philipp Hancke
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: [snip] Now what happens should I attempt to piggyback the users.jabber.org connection on the jabber.org connection? jabber.org kills my stream. Really? Why? host-unknown/.