[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Carbons

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Thu Apr 29 06:50:21 UTC 2010

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Any reactions to this?  This is intended to be instead-of mine-ing, so I
> would expect the anti-mine-ing folks to have some reaction one way or
> another.

Some comments:
"The receiving server SHOULD NOT modify the 'to' address of the forked
The receiving server is not entitled to modify that, at least with 3920 
behaviour (11.1 rule 4, case 1, must not rewrite).

"and MUST also be sent to all of the Carbons-enabled resources for the
  receiving user."
This is for backward compability?

"The 'to' address not matching the JID of the session is somewhat
  unprecedented in XMPP,"

s/the JID of the session/"full or bare JID of the user"/ ?

What you mean is that the client gets that stanza and is the intended 
recipient even though the JID given in 'to' is neither the clients full 
or bare JID? This is a rather drastic reinterpretation of 'to' and 
probably deserves a more detailed explanation.

You did not use XEP 0033 for that because that does not work with Chat
State Notifications?


More information about the Standards mailing list