[Standards] XEP-0184 business rules for message receipts

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Fri Mar 12 08:00:50 UTC 2010


On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> Ok, so...
>> I think
>> "Therefore this document does not define a protocol for complete
>> reliability or guaranteed delivery, and those who implement and deploy
>> this protocol need to be aware of its limitations." can be more
>> explicit and say what this really means, something like " As such it
>> is NOT RECOMMENDED that a client uses the lack of a delivered receipt
>> as an indication that a message has not been received, or should be
>> retransmitted".
>
> Erk, too many nots. :)
>
> How about:
>
> "A sender cannot know whether a recipient supports this protocol if the
> sender knows (or addresses messages to) only the recipient's bare JID.
> In this case the sender MUST NOT consider the lack of a receipt as an
> indication that the message needs to be retransmitted."

My precious double-negatives!
Actually, the meaning of the two versions is slightly different - the
latter suggests you don't use the lack of a receipt as a suggestion to
retransmit when sending to the bare JID. I'm suggesting that the text
about limitations suggests the same for a full JID. How about

 "A sender cannot know whether a recipient supports this protocol if the
 sender knows (or addresses messages to) only the recipient's bare JID,
 and cannot know if a supporting recipient will return a receipt.
As such, the sender MUST NOT consider the lack of a receipt as an
 indication that the message needs to be retransmitted."

>> "A sender MAY include a request for message receipts even if it has
>> not been able to determine if the intended recipient supports message
>> receipts. This can be done directly via Service Discovery or
>> indirectly via Entity Capabilities." +  "but MUST NOT include a
>> request where it has been able to determine that the intended
>> recipient does not support message receipts" or such would solve a lot
>> of my above issues.
> Indeed. I'll reworking the text along the lines you propose and post again.

Wonderful, thanks.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list