On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> While I was originally writing 289, I misinterpreted a requirement >> I'd heard, and this led me to believe that master/slave mode was >> needed. I've since convinced myself that only the master/master mode >> is needed. If M/S is never going to be used, I'd like to remove it >> from the spec. Please raise your hand if you're intending implementing >> XEP-0289, > > > I don't think so, but looking at it, I haven't evaluated the requirements > yet for a future use case I need to support: > - A collection of laptops gets close to each other (WiFi, Bluetooth) > - They all automatically join the same MUC > > It might be a peer-to-peer mechanism, or one might run a temporary XMPP > server (thus becoming the master). Now, if XEP-0289 is not needed for that, > then it's not applicable to my situation.
I don't think 289 is particularly useful to solving that problem, although I have heard of similar requirements elsewhere. /K
