[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)
Ruslan N. Marchenko
me at ruff.mobi
Mon Feb 13 18:29:07 UTC 2017
On 13.02.2017 15:29, Georg Lukas wrote:
> * 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
> is present
Thanks for clarification, but then still, why two? if <private/> is
still required to avoid bump, why not to stick to that? Especially if,
as it was pointed out in referenced thread - they have different
semantic, but XEP expects them to provide same outcome within
> 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.
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards