Matthew Wild wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Curtis King wrote: >>> On 19-Feb-09, at 1:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think the bandwidth difference is that big here, but I like the >>>> idea of putting it in rfc3921bis so that more people implement it. ;-) >>> +1 >>> >>> Funny, I'm adding basic support for this right now. >> Super. I'll update XEP-0237 again so that it's closer to what was in >> version 0.3. :) >> > > Looks like I need to update my implementation :)
Super. Let's do some interop testing. :) > I'm not really bothered by the format of the request. However I > wouldn't myself have recommended for it to go into the RFCs, > preferring to keep the core protocols as simple as possible. However > this is just my personal opinion, I have no technical reasons to back > it up :) I tend to want to keep things out of the RFCs, too, but this seems quite closely tied in with rosters so I think it's easier and less confusing to specify it in rfc3921bis. > That said, where does the stuff we discussed at the summit about > fetching only particular roster groups for a session come in now? This > is something I could see going into the RFCs, tying in a lot more > closely with existing roster semantics. Quite possibly. I haven't had a chance to think about that yet. Will do soon. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
