On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:47:47 +0200 Dirk Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > Dirk Meyer wrote: > >> Peter wants to give XEP-0189 more love, I guess this is something > >> that should be in it. Also the user/client keys. When he is back I > >> can work with him to add all that stuff. > > > > Sure, let's do that. Or feel free to pull the XML out of SVN and > > start working on it. :) > > I just looked at it and PEP and some other XEPs and there are some > things I do not like. Maybe these XEPs need a small update for this > use-case. > > 1. PEP says the last_item should only be send if the priority is not > negative. But all bots have a negative priority and will never get > the updates. Maybe an extra config option for PubSub/PEP: also send > to negative priority? http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#filtered-notifications No priority in PubSub. In PEP: "If a subscriber subscribed using a bare JID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and a PEP service has appropriate presence information about the subscriber, the PEP service MUST send one notification to the full JID (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> or <domain.tld/resource>) of each of the subscriber's available resources that have specified non-negative presence priority and included XEP-0115 information that indicates an interest in the data format." I believe that if some resource indicates an interest, it should get what it wants. +1 for a change in the XEP > 2. I like the fact that I get a notification when I start my client > when there is a new item (if it is configured that way). But I also > want to be notified when something was deleted (certificate > revoked). What I would like to have is that I get a notification > from the server that "something has changed since I was last > online" so I can get the whole tree of certificates. You should not need to watch deleted item. Certificates are revoked, not deleted, revocation could be just easily announced as a new item. > Maybe move that discussion to the pubsub list? /me needs to subscribe > to that list, too :) Maybe, I'm not sure. > And something else I also added a note in my XEP proposal about the > TLS verification: how should keys look like. XEP-0189 now uses xmldsig > which IMHO is very complicated. People now how a keys look in PEM > format. Maybe just use this? > > > Dirk > -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
