Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Mar 17 15:22:28 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Pedro Melo wrote: >> > Lets not abuse the meaning of <message> just because we like their >> > network properties, like we abused <presence> in the past because it >> > broadcasts well. >> >> +1. >> >> > Absolutely. So I'm looking forward to seeing the update to XEP-0060 > which changes PubSub pushes from being <message/> to <iq/>, in (for > example) section 7.1.2.1. > > Or, alternately, could someone explain to me why the use of <message/> > stanzas for the 7.1.2.1 case is not "abuse", whereas would be. Looks to > me like they're the same use-case.
Very funny. :P We use messages there in part because using IQs would require knowing the full JID (and stock pubsub services do not know that). But that's neither here nor there. The question is whether: (1) acking an occasional roster push from the server to the client (where BTW the server *does* know your full JID) is a serious problem that we need to solve because it wastes large amounts of bandwidth or (2) sending roster pushes via <message/> is a pretty optimization that is more elegant than what we developed in 1999, but it fundamentally unnecessary I think (2) obtains. Therefore I think it's just fine to keep IQs for roster pushes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
