[Standards] Advancing XEP-0280 Carbons

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 09:16:03 UTC 2015

I was just typing a reply, but Florian hit the same points as I was
going to, so reply inline...

On 2 April 2015 at 09:35, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> On 02.04.2015 10:08, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On 1 April 2015 at 18:33, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com
> > <mailto:mwild1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >     On 1 April 2015 at 17:37, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net
> >     <mailto:dave at cridland.net>> wrote:
> >         It is also not clear to me what, exactly, the "more" consists
> >         of. I have heard:
> >
> >          - Reflection of messages to the source.
> >
> >
> >     I think this only really makes sense in XEP-0280.
> >
> >
> > ...
> > <feature var='urn:xmpp:carbons:2'/>
> > <feature var='urn:xmpp:carbons:advanced:0'/>
> > ...
> >
> > <iq type='set'>
> >   <enable xmlns='urn:xmpp:carbons:2'
> > adv:xmlns='urn:xmpp:carbons:advanced:0'>
> >     <adv:reflection/>
> After giving it more thought I'm really undecided if I think it's better
> to have this in carbons (xep280) or as extra XEP. But I think, given
> that carbons is still experimental, and maybe soon deferred, I
> personally would add this feature to the carbons XEP and not as extra XEP.

Agreed. It's not very different to bumping the carbons namespace in
the end - servers can offer multiple versions if they want.
Conceptually this belongs in XEP-0280. Developers often complain about
having to read too many XEPs to get anything practical done.

> >          - Addition of MAM identifiers.
> >     This can (and should) be a separate XEP.
> > <adv:archive-id/>
> Noooo, IMHO message IDs are orthogonal to carbons and especially not a
> feature of carbons. A few people incl myself think more of something
> like http://geekplace.eu/xeps/xep-mid/xep-mid.html.

Agreed. This doesn't need to be part of carbons, nor should it be.

> >          - Other types beyond 'chat'.
> Seems to be something we want to have. And I would tend to put this into
> the carbons XEP too.

I'm undecided about this. I think we could get away with just saying
that normal+chat should be copied. Headlines are usually sent to the
bare JID. If you want to use headlines for their no-storage policy,
use normal with the no-store hint from XEP-0334.

> >     There is one more item, switching from <private/> to XEP-0334
> >     Message Processing Hints.
> Don't care, as I see, in this specific case, neither a big advantage in
> re-using existing XEPs for carbon's private semantic, nor an disadvantage.

I think it's an advantage to have some consistency between our XEPs,
particularly given that MAM and Carbons go hand-in-hand in any modern

We're rapidly closing in on the ideal stack for reliable user-friendly
end-to-end messaging, and when these specs are done, they're here to
stay. Carbons is 99% of the way to the ideal protocol, I'd really love
to plug the few remaining holes before sending it out to sea.


More information about the Standards mailing list