stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Nov 6 16:57:25 UTC 2006
Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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.
Personally I don't have a problem with impolite blocking, but I'm not
necessarily a polite person. :-)
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards