[Standards] [E2E] Why we need a <body> element
dave at cridland.net
Tue Sep 30 17:21:56 UTC 2008
On Tue Sep 30 17:42:58 2008, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 30.09.2008 um 17:33 schrieb Dave Cridland:
>> And to cover our coversation elsewhere (through that funny
>> "Instant Messaging" thing), a downside of including <body> is
>> that a client might assume it's a reasonable alternative, whereas
>> otherwise it could bounce the message (type="error") which would
>> cause the sender to re-initiate the session.
> Messages with unknown stuff are simply ignored, the RFC says so
Hmmm. I wonder if we could move toward changing that. Messages
without any known stuff feel like they should result in an error.
>> So yes, JS's problem is real, but the proposed cure of adding
>> <body> to IBB is worse than the disease, and I'll cheerfully
>> admit I hadn't thought this one through - sorry for jumping in
>> like that.
> It solves the problem with clients that don't know IBB, thus will
> just throw away the stanza and not warn - the user never knows he
> lost a message.
It's certainly no worse than without encrypted streams.
>> Incidentally, both ends can check the session by using XEP-0199
>> inside the P2P XML stream. And XEP-0198 is also applicable here,
>> and much more useful than XEP-0184 on the IBB packets.
> Think about small clients that only support the really necessary
> stuff to use XMPP.
But then they wouldn't have E2E encryption anyway.
I suppose the point is that if you want to have a highly reliable
stream, you use XEP-0198 on it, and this applies whether you're
referring to a C2S or P2P stream.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards