[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0297 (Stanza Forwarding)
mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 13:07:55 UTC 2012
Thanks for the feedback.
On 23 August 2012 03:52, Jefry Lagrange <jefry.reyes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the use case with message is enough. It would be more
> clear if it had an use case with an IQ. It is not clear how one should
> respond to a forwarded IQ.
The specification used to be "message forwarding", and the last
revision changed it to allow the forwarding of any stanza. I think
this is fine, as I understand some protocols may want to forward all
kinds of stanza.
However outside such a protocol, receiving a forwarded iq doesn't seem
to make much sense to me. It certainly shouldn't be treated as an
actual <iq> in my opinion. There are far too many problems with that.
> Another question would be: Is it possible to bypass the middle man,
> once you get the forwarded stanza (in case you need to reply)?
In the case of a forwarded message that is displayed to the user -
it's the user's choice whether to send a reply, and who to.
In the case of any other kind of stanza, or one forwarded as part of
another protocol - that's really something specific to that protocol,
and not the forwarding mechanism.
If there are no objections to my line of thinking, I'll try and
clarify the XEP - at least about <iq>s.
More information about the Standards