On Oct 6, 2011, at 4:42 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:

> On 6 October 2011 07:46, Kim Alvefur <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
>>> stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
>>> and requirements?
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
>>> why not?
>> I just pushed some work I did on a plugin for Prosody, updating it to
>> the latest spec. Only the catalog serving part though.
>> 
>>> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
>> If this counts as security concerns:
>> 
>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0258.html#label-catalog
>>> If catalog is restrictive, as indicated by the restrict attribute with
>>> value of true, the client SHOULD use one of the labels (or no label)
>>> offered by the catalog.
> 
> I second this sentence as confusing, it gets me every time.

I'll simplify and clarify per my response to Kim.

> Also it would be nice to expand on the catalog-fetching flow, and how
> to really use the 'from' attribute on <catalog>, which is only
> mentioned in passing (it feels tacked-on).

It was just tacked-on.  When a server is asking another server for a catalog on 
behalf of a user, it may desire to indicate so to the other server so that 
responding server can produce a catalog specifically for that user as opposed 
to returning a catalog for all users of the requesting server.  The responding 
server is free to ignore the from= (it may, for instance, have no knowledge of 
clearance for the user).   I'll elaborate on this a bit in the spec.

I'll see where else I might expand on the catalog fetching flow.  Suggestions 
welcomed.

> 
> There's an open question in 5.2.3.

See my response to Wayne.

> I'm not sure how "right" it is to be piggybacking on MUC subject
> changes, as described in 5.2.5. I'm not inherently against it, mind.

5.2.5 needs a rewrite.

In short, I don't think we ought to overload subject changes with a room label 
change side-effect.   So no label should be provided with a subject change 
stanza.  Changing security information objects (security labels, clearances, 
etc) associated with a room should be done through room configuration.

-- Kurt

Reply via email to