[Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples

Ruslan N. Marchenko me at ruff.mobi
Tue Feb 21 20:35:51 UTC 2017

Good evening,

In the examples across XEP-0313 the IQs are all to-less.

If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the 
server itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. <iq id='1'/> == <iq 
to='example.org' id='1'/>.

In MAM case archiving node for the user is user's bare jid - hence 
proper addressing should be <iq to='user at example.org' id='1' 

While both - server and bare are supposed to be handled by server, the 
semantic is different - one is executed on behalf of the user and 
another on behalf of the server.

So to recap - disco example targets bare jid - i.e. it's bare jid 
(storage node) which supports mam, and if it is implemented as separate 
service - querying server for archive is a bit misleading.

prefs on the other hand should be handled by server but then - shouldn't 
server as well respond to disco#info with mam feature - as indicator of 
supported prefs at least perhaps?



More information about the Standards mailing list