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

mathieui mathieui at mathieui.net
Thu Dec 22 14:55:54 UTC 2016


On 2016-12-22 15:06, Steve Kille wrote:
>> > 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)
> 
Hello,

As Georg said, some protocols depend on it, especially XEP-0296, but 
many others
like message correction, chat states, have hard requirements on full 
JIDs; if only
because the XEPs specify that the client should adapt to the remote 
party
capabilities.

Best regards,

Mathieu


More information about the Standards mailing list