[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)
georg at op-co.de
Mon Feb 13 14:29:32 UTC 2017
* Ruslan N. Marchenko <me at ruff.mobi> [2017-02-12 16:33]:
> No, the no-copy use is ambiguous. Are private and no-copy equivalent? Are
> they complementing each other? what is the server behaviour when only one of
> them is provided?
> I personally am in favour of <private/> order for owner and no-copy hint for
> remote party. And then - should server always strip <private/> before
> routing? Should it replace it with <no-copy/> hint?
This has been discussed already in the previous "last" call:
As there was no consensus two years ago, I just added both elements to
0280 in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/382
The rationale is to ensure widest compatibility without a namespace
- a client complying to the latest version adds both elements
- a server interprets the message as no-carbons-please if either element
I don't think there is a use-case where you only want to prevent a local
forwarding to your other client, or only a remote forwarding to the
receiver's other clients. For OTR at least, you want both.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Standards