For the benefit of others wanting context, this is XEP-0060 section 8.2.4. The existing SHOULD in this section is probably wrong, in as much as it's either meaningless (to configure a node, obviously you send the form) or else egregious (if you pull the form and the node seems to be set right, why reconfigure it?).
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 04:38, Travis Burtrum <[email protected]> wrote: > > The submitted configuration form MAY contain a subset of possible > configuration options. In that case, the service MUST only change the > submitted configuration options. > > I don't think that text expresses what is actually intended. I think what you want to say is that if a client doesn't provide all the options, the server fills in the "missing" values from the configuration form defaults, and not global defaults or something. This is, oddly, not specified in XEP-0004, even though I suspect we all think it's obvious. Not including the fields at all, however, is - and therefore this first MAY is not required (and is stipulating a conformance outside its remit). Once you have that, then you process the form as 8.2.5. That makes no stipulations on the server as to how a form is processed, and whether setting one value will change another, etc, so far. > The concern here is that adding a MUST where one didn't exist previously > could make existing compliant implementations suddenly non-compliant. I > believe it was said in MUC discussions that prosody follows this anyway, > can anyone chime in about other implementations they know about ? > > Modulo the MUST being not quite right, I don't think this does actually change anything. > It was also proposed that this MUST could be changed to a SHOULD, which > would get around the protocol-breaking, but I'm not sure it adds a lot > of value, since, if you can't be sure what the service will do, then you > can never submit just a subset of config options and hope for the best. > > MUST->SHOULD doesn't change much as regards older servers doing something different, sorry. SHOULD is not "MAYBE", but "MUST (unless you really think you know better, and even then, you don't)". > Any input is appreciated. But that's not what it said on the form! (Sorry) So, summary: I'd replace the opening text to 8.2.4 with: "If the owner wishes to change the configuration, they submit a completed configuration form. The server MUST treat any fields not included as though they are supplied with the default values from the configuration form (see 8.2.2)." Honestly I think the MUST there is a bit overkill, but I think the rest is OK. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
