[Standards-JIG] In order delivery for xep-0047 ?

[Ian Paterson]

I agree with the quotes below from Remko, Matthias and Kevin.

Since the intention has always been for in-order delivery, either we 
need to tighten up the wording of the RFC a little to remove any 
possible doubt, or we need to agree a radical change to XMPP to allow 
client implementations to reorder the instant messages they receive.

Such a major change is unlikely to be agreed at this late stage, and IMO 
it would not be desirable anyway since it is incompatible with our 
Simple Clients mantra.

- Ian




Remko Tronçon wrote:
> The possibility of delivering messages out of
> order puts a huge burden on the client, and I don't think any client
> copes with this (for example, when sending MUC history). Even worse,
> if a server can reorder messages, then the client will sometimes show
> messages in the wrong order, which is untolerable in an IM context.

Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> If in-order delivery would not be necessary, why should then in-order 
> processing be required? If I would not receive stanzas in-order, 
> nobody could check if I am processing them in-order. Therefore the 
> requirement in section 10 does not make sence to me, if it would not 
> include in-order delivery.

Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2006, at 16:19, Mridul wrote:
>> Anyway, the point is - since xmpp does not mandate in order delivery
>
> I'm not at all sure that this is true, but if it's possible to 
> interpret it this way, I think the wording should be tightened up in 
> the RFCs, as it's always been my belief that in-order delivery was the 
> intention.