6 Jan
2026
6 Jan
'26
11 a.m.
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:10, Dave Cridland wrote:
The feature is specific to reporting via blocking
already. Section 3 begins:
Entities that support Service Discovery (XEP-0030) [2] and abuse reporting using the
blocking command as defined in this spec MUST respond to service discovery requests with a
feature of 'urn:xmpp:reporting:1'.
There's no behaviour associated with the report syntax except for blocking, so it
doesn't need another feature.
I would hesitate before suggesting that one XEP should add a "sub namespace" to
another's, I think that could get very confusing very fast.
If we had another consumer of reports, then we'd have another feature for that mode
of consumption (or production, I suppose).
Yes im aware that this generic namespace is specific for functionality with blocking
command now.
I think the text regarding that is clear enough in the XEP.
But i think its a missed chance to choose a namespace that semantically makes more sense.
Clearly separating the definition of the generic element, from the implementation in a
specific context.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:06, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
I agree with everything except this. Why is it
insufficient to say "if you
support both blocking and reporting then you support reporting in blocking" ?
I wrote insufficient, when i believed it was intended that other future XEPs also are
supposed to announce urn:xmpp:reporting:1, but it seems the author is aware and it was
intended that no other XEP can announce this feature, because it is bound to blocking
command.
Regards
Philipp