[Standards-JIG] XEP-191

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Nov 6 16:48:15 UTC 2006


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> BTW, polite blocking is what we defined in RFC 3921, so XEP-0191 as it
> stands is consistent with RFC 3921 and XEP-0016. 
I know, but this is the chance to change things :)

> IMHO we need to think
> about it a bit more before making a change. 
Of course, but this is an effort to start with a proposal and a 
discussion :)

> And really this is a social
> issue (leave it up to service-level policy or individual choice) than a
> technology issue per se.
Well, doing polite blocking is a purely social decision. Doing bounced 
blocking though is a technical decision though, since it would be nice 
for xmpp to be a reliable protocol (i.e. without blackholes) imo. I'd 
just like it that, since there is a technical reason to do bounces, and 
a social issue which is unclear which is preferable, we could discuss 
any technical reasons to do polite blocking. When we start doing 
guaranteed delivery of whatever form, Justin's XMPP changes, or 
184-Message receipts, we're looking at causing a full set of retransmits 
if we drop stanzas silently.

/K

-- 
Kevin Smith
Psi project lead.



More information about the Standards mailing list