25 Dec
2025
25 Dec
'25
12:01 a.m.
Hi,
If you intend to support different contexts of blocking, then one would expect that the
context is mentioned in the feature. Or whats your idea for a feature name for the next
context, say MUC?
Further the
disco feature is insufficient if this will be used as a base
spec. The disco feature should clearly state for which use case reporting
is supported, in this case Blocking Command.
So e.g. urn:xmpp:blocking:reporting:1
Hmm. I have no strong feeling here. Supporting both blocking and reporting
features would mean you support blocking with nested reporting. I believe
that is the current intent. Having an explicit blocking+reporting feature as
well could be fine I don't mind it but I don't know that we need it either.