Hi,
After reading all the discussions related to my pull request it seems that
there is a consensus on the fact that PEP should not be used
this way to store those OMEMO bundles.I agree to retrieve it and continue with
the current flow.
Regards,
Timothée Jaussoin
Le lundi 03 avril 2017 à 07:18 +0200, Remko Tronçon a écrit :
> On 26 March 2017 at 00:01, Timothée Jaussoin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This behavior can be fixed by setting pubsub#deliver_payloads to false in
> > the 'urn:xmpp:omemo:0' node configuration.
>
> Bringing node configuration into a PEP-based protocol sounds like a slippery
> slope, and is maybe taking it too far. Doesn't this also
> bring in extra complexity and questions like who configures the node and when?
>
> The current split between data (which no one subscribes to) and metadata
> (which is subscribed to) makes sense to me, and doesn't rely
> on anything but PEP semantics. This approach is also used in XEP-0084 (User
> Avatar), which is probably the oldest PEP protocol out
> there.
>
> Keeping this split seems independent from the discussion whether device IDs
> (i.e. the metadata) should be published to separate
> items, and that the entire list can be queried for any new clients. XEP-0084
> also publishes to different item IDs, although it
> doesn't rely on the entire list of metadata to be available, and if a server
> doesn't support item IDs, avatars would still sort of
> work.
>
> Remko
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
