On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 12/3/09 12:54 PM, Robin Collier wrote: > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:56:30 -0700 > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [PubSub] finishing up 1.13 > >> > >> OK folks, it's time to push version 1.13 of XEP-0060 out the door. My > >> main question is: do we have consensus on the versioning stuff? If not > >> (and if we can't gain consensus soon), then I would vote to remove it so > >> that we can publish 1.13. > >> > > > > I am sure it comes as no surprise, but I believe 'ver' values need to be > > ordered > > In roster versioning (XEP-0237), we said only that the 'ver' needs to be > unique, leaving it up to the implementation whether it will make the > 'ver' a strictly-increasing sequence number (and I think that's the > consensus for pubsub, as well). It's not clear to me why pubsub 'ver' > needs to be ordered. Could you please recap your argument for why *all* > pubsub implementations (not just your implementation) MUST enforce > ordering? > > Yes, to support algorithms the 'ver' should be forced to be ordered in specs, otherwise the application implementations will become version specifics. I actually expcected (not read) that to be case by default. Ordering is not necessary in *all* pubsub implementations, but ordering is not disturbing any implementation. - Ville
