More important than the limits, imo, would be the error to be conveyed
to the client in case it set's a roster item which violates the server
policies on size.
This could potentially be reused in other places as well ... is
not-acceptable descriptive enough for this ?
If we specify this, then rest is just an implementation detail imo with
a recommendation to clients/servers to support atleast so many characters.
Regards,
Mridul
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Matthias Wimmer wrote:
Hi Michal!
Michal 'vorner' Vaner schrieb:
What is the problem with saying the server can have a limit and deny to
perform such crazy operation.
Sounds reasonable. Roster items are not exchanged between servers,
Yet. :) What happens when we define shared rosters?
so it
seems we do not need a common limit. Each implementation could have it's
own and reject a request that contains longer items.
If a limitation is added to the spec, it should only be an advice for
the minimum that should be supported by any implementation.
Sure. BTW the schemas are NOT normative, so this is mostly a guideline
anyway.
And it
should be defined which error is returned if the item is to big.
I'm doing that in rfc3920bis, which is why I started to think about the
schemas.
Specifying this more tightly in rfc3920bis seems uncontroversial to me,
I never expected the idea to generate so much list traffic!
Peter
