Hi Goffi, Thanks for the feedback. We already were in general agreement that this change was needed, I think, but were waiting for other Council members to weigh in.
I have now applied the requested changes in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1455/commits/f048f8ef08a129f1a2e5a5efd16350d4c13cac03 Kind regards, Guus On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 8:54 PM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guus, > > I'm writing to give explanation of my today vote at Council. > > I've voted -1 to block the submission because we were at the end of the 2 > weeks time-frame, and the PR would be automatically accepted otherwise. > The > veto was just to block the current one for a re-submission with the > requested > change. > > So to be clear, I'm all in favor of this PR and thankful to your work, I'm > just blocking it as discussed on the ticket itself because I'm worrying > that > the PR wording is changing the meaning of XEP-0060 regarding node > discovery > with disco#items. > > I'm repeating here for archive (and possibly discussion): > > XEP-0060 originally says: > > > If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes (by means of <link > > url='#collections'>Collection Nodes</link>), it MUST also enable entities > > to discover the nodes in that hierarchy by means of the <strong>Service > > Discovery</strong> protocol > > The "MUST" here is only "If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes". > > Your PR in its current state changes it for: > > > A service MUST enable entities to discover the nodes by means of the > > <strong>Service Discovery</strong> protocol, subject to the > > recommendations in &xep0030; regarding large result sets (for which > > &xep0055; or some other protocol SHOULD be used). > > There is no longer a requirement for a service implementing a hierarchy of > nodes, so there's an unconditional "MUST" here. > > That changes the specification and may make existing implementations > invalid, > which shouldn't happen with a stable XEP. > > Therefore, the PR should use "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" here, and it would > also be beneficial to add text explicitly stating that different entities > may > have different nodes listed, and the list may even be empty for some > entities. > > This is important socially because people may want to hide some nodes > (e.g., a > private or invite-only blog). > > It's also important technically because it must be clear that the list of > nodes cannot be cached globally (at least without further negotiation), > and is > valid only per entity. > > The council discussed that a "MUST" with explanation could be acceptable, > but > after further consideration, and given that the original state had no > "MUST" > for non-hierarchical nodes, I really think a "SHOULD" is needed here. > > I hope my explanation is clear. Please update this small detail; I'll > definitely be +1 on the next round. > > Best, > Goffi_______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
