> On 20 Jan 2026, at 10:17, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > I'm going to make one last argument and then I think we will have exchanged > enough arguments for council to make a decision later today. > > This is an experiment. We both agree that we need more implementational > experience. For now we don't really know if roster size or crypto overhead > and crypto operations will be be the bottle neck.
I don’t think this is true. We do know that there are rosters in the wild that are large enough to realistically be limited by pubsub item/stanza size limits. I don’t like one-item-per-item at all, but I don’t think one-item-per-roster is viable. /K > > However if we don't know, the most sensible thing from my POV is to keep it > simple. Do the minimum viable thing. Take the existing roster, with its > existing features wrt groups and stick it into one encrypted item. Allow us > to reuse existing parsers. Make a drop in replacement for clear text rosters. > > Cheers > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > 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]
