Not sure what 0.3 includes but I'm hoping the canonical copy is the current
version.

<<A group address refers to a collection of wave addresses, much like an
email mailing list.>>

I believe this is the only place where what a 'group' is specified n the
docs. Might want to break this out into a different section.

<<In the remainder we ignore addressees that are services, including robots
and gateways - they are treated largely the same as users with respect to
federation.>>

Semicolon rather than dash.

<<URI generic delimiter characters (:/?#[]@) appearing in the id parts must
be percent-escaped.>>

I assume this means "%@" but could possibly do with an example.

<<In an earlier revision of this draft specification these components were
called "federation gateway" and "federation proxy", respectively>>

Should have noted this in my last email, but they still are referred to as
"gateway" and "proxy" in the Fed architecture whitepaper.

<<Operations propagate through the system to all clients and servers
interested in that wavelet>>

"with participants in" rather than "interested in" ?


Jd




On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Michael K <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-specs/draft-protocol-spec
>
> (or at least that's what I'm refering to)
>
> On Oct 5, 2:31 am, Joe Developer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > On 7/28/09 1:23 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > > > So what comments do people have on v 0.2 of the spec. I agree that
> the
> > > > certificate query/push needs to stop using pubsub, and switch to a
> raw
> > > > iq set/get/result. Other than that, are there any issues?
> >
> > > Here are some comments...
> >
> > > 1. wavelets
> >
> > > You mention that a user-data wavelet has the user as the only
> > > participant. Have you thought about instances where the user-data
> > > wavelet might be changeable by an authorized person such as a personal
> > > assistant?
> >
> > > 2. wavelet name format
> >
> > > Perhaps add a note about characters that need to be escaped in XML
> > > attributes.
> >
> > > 3. wavelet update
> >
> > > Why use message stanzas here with receipts (XEP-0184)? It seems that
> you
> > > really want IQs, and the next version of the pubsub spec will have a
> > > node configuration option for delivery of pubsub notifications via IQs.
> > > The use of IQ seems especially appropriate since the entities involved
> > > are wave servers with stable addresses.
> >
> > > 4. history request/response
> >
> > > Is the literal NodeID "wavelet" hardcoded?
> >
> > > The example for returning the requested history is missing the NodeID
> > > and ItemIDs (also true for some later examples, let's fill these in to
> > > avoid developer confusion).
> >
> > > 5. submit response/response
> >
> > > The use of an IQ-set here implies that a federation remote is a PubSub
> > > publisher from the federation host's perspective. Does the host accept
> > > publish requests from any remote, or is there some explicit or implicit
> > > agreement to federate? What if a host does not accept publish requests
> > > from a remote? Does it return a forbidden error?
> >
> > > 6. certificate request/response
> >
> > > We might want to usehttp://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dna.htmlor the
> > > Internet-Draft that replaces it (coming soon!).
> >
> > > 7. documents
> >
> > > Sorry, I haven't reviewed this section yet. :)
> >
> > > Peter
> >
> > > - --
> > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > >https://stpeter.im/
> >
> > > Where is the original thread for this? or where are the texts being
> >
> > discussed above located at?
> > - Joedev
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave 
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to