[Standards] MIX clarity, MAM, and client-proxy interactions

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Thu Dec 22 14:06:25 UTC 2016


> > I do not think there is a need to attribute messages to specific
> > clients.   From a recipient perspective, messages come from other
> > users.
> 
> I strongly disagree. Having a proper end-to-end message attribution to clients
> is a requirement for many XMPP protocols, be it Chat State Notifications,
> Message Acks, Last Message Correction or file transfers.
> Once the basics are set, we could also use MIX-PM-to-ourself to synchronize
> the read-state of individual MIXes.
> 
> IMO, providing client attribution is the main selling point for the significantly
> increased complexity of MIX over MUC, and reverting that won't do the
> protocol any good. Feel free to add this to the Brussels list.

[Steve Kille] 

I am not sure what benefit you would have in knowing that a message comes from steve.kille at isode.com/df45o5678  (client) rather than steve.kille at isode.com  (user)


Steve  



More information about the Standards mailing list