[Standards] [E2E] Why we need a <body> element

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Tue Sep 30 14:28:18 UTC 2008


Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Dirk Meyer <dmeyer at tzi.de> wrote:
>
>> There is no statement in the XEP that the stream in inband. The
>> clients can use SOCKS5 or a direct connection for the private
>> stream. I do not see were you want to put the body in that case.
>
> I'm talking about IF we use IBB, which seems what most intended to do
> and is the most sane - you don't always want a direct connection when
> you talk to someone, especially as this might be a privacy problem.

OK. So you want to add a <body> if we use IBB. And because you can not
add a <body> with an error message to an <iq> you want to add a note
in the XEP to use <message> for IBB. Is that correct?

>> If you use IQ stanzas for e2e streams they should never reach the
>> wrong resource. If they do, it is a bug in the server. And even if
>> they do, the receiver should rehect that IBB stanza (unknown sid) and
>> the sender knows that the e2e stream is broken.
>
> I was talking about if we use <message>.

You propose to use <message> because we can add a body to it and we
can not do that with <iq>. But why do you propose <message> in the
first place when the routing problem does not happen with <iq>? Sorry,
I do not understand what you mean.


Dirk

-- 
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?



More information about the Standards mailing list