[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0297 (Stanza Forwarding)

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Fri Aug 24 20:52:28 UTC 2012


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Miller
<linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 07:07, Matthew Wild wrote:
>
>> Hi Jefry,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Mmm :)
>>
>> 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.
>
> This fits with my interpretation, too.

AOL

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list