[Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call ("Proposed")
dave at cridland.net
Tue Aug 18 11:22:58 UTC 2015
I'm in full support of both the PRs raised (#50 and #51); these address all
the points I saw raised in discussion.
On 17 August 2015 at 18:37, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> * Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> [2015-08-17 15:47]:
> > After discussion in the XSF MUC, I’ve pushed another change, so
> > probably best to track via the
> > https://github.com/Kev/xeps/commits/carbons branch.
> I'll see your patch and raise you $200.
> After some more discussion in xsf@ we figured out that at least two
> server implementations (prosody, ejabberd) haven't implemented section 6
> of XEP-0280 anyway, and were using identical behavior for full-JID and
> bare-JID messages. Furthermore, section 6 is completely redundant, as
> the same behavior can be achieved under existing RFC 6121 §188.8.131.52.1
> OTOH, message forking (as opposed to carbon-copying) introduces several
> * a carbons-enabled client with a negative priority can receive chat
> messages under the section 6 rules.
> * a carbons-enabled client can not determine if it received a bare-JID
> message due to regular message routing or due to Carbons (this is
> useful for determining if a notification should be silent or loud,
> though a "smart" client can determine that by watching presence of
> the user's other resources).
> * it makes the XEP more complicated for no benefit.
> Therefore, I have gone a step further than Kev and removed section 6
> (and rephrased section 7 accordingly). As this change does not break
> anything, I'd like to have it added to XEP-0280. However, it is based on
> Kev's patches, so please discuss it now, and I'll open a PR as soon as
> Kev's changes are (hopefully) accepted.
> P.S: This was already discussed a year ago, the thread can be found here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards