[Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples
Ruslan N. Marchenko
me at ruff.mobi
Tue Feb 21 20:35:51 UTC 2017
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
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