On 11 July 2018 at 16:33, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: > I recently submitted PR #672 to the xeps repo > > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/672 > > to make users of RSM, like MAM, aware whether the result is exact or > not. It received some scepticism from the council members in today's > council meeting. I am to blame here as I thought the abstract motivation > in the commit message was enough. It appears it wasn't. > > While I think multiple applications could exploit that information, my > particular motivation was MAM. Consider the scenario where you have a > master archive and a local archive. The local archive may have multiple > holes at unknown locations. Now you want to sync your local archive from > the master using MAM/RSM.
I'm not keen on this solution for the premise you've given. I don't believe that when using MAM correctly you would ever end up with "holes at unknown locations" in your local archive. I don't think that encouraging people to use a "bisection algorithm" is the right thing to do. If this is a problem you are facing, let's go back to the basics and figure out how you end up with holes at unknown locations in your archive. And we can fix that. Regards, Matthew _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
