Subject: [xmpp] 3921bis roster set failures.

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:45:20 +0100

At the end of 2.3.3, there's some verbiage about the server getting to
optionally wing it if roster sets fail, and do roughly handwaving
$STUFF. I would have thought that at best this was SHOULD NOT, and
MUST NOT doesn't seem entirely inappropriate - telling the client you
succeeded in an operation when most of it was a failure seems very
wrong. Whether SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT (and I'd lean to the latter),
OPTIONAL seems inappropriate.

/K

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:16:50 +0200

> OPTIONAL seems inappropriate.

Well we've got another "SHOULD but MAY" here, and that's bad. :)

We have a few options:

1. Say the server MUST return an error for those cases (more than one
<item/>, duplicate groups, 'name' too long, zero-length <group/>,
<group/> name too long).

2. Keep the SHOULDs but not specify implementation details about how a
server might handle exceptions.

I think I'd prefer MUST here, because SHOULD opens up too many questions
for no good reason.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:22:13 +0100

> I think I'd prefer MUST here, because SHOULD opens up too many questions

Well, we're talking about the case where something's gone wrong, right?
MUST return an error seems like the Right Thing.

/K

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:28:33 +0200

> MUST return an error seems like the Right Thing.

I'm in violent agreement here. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/