[Standards] XEP-0280 (Carbons) proposals

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Jun 1 10:31:38 UTC 2017


Hi all,
I promised to review and start a thread on the pending PR for Carbons updates ( https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434 ), so here we are.

Removing no-copy:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/aac8f94b0df64b250f7d5320d9f2e5e76b38d2ff

I think this goes beyond just removing no-copy, and makes what was before a hint by the client now normative. While hints are fine, I don’t think mandating this behaviour is right.

Compacting suggestions for when messages are carbon-eligible:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/f0e432c15ee3b811a4065abc4baa158ba5fae0c9

This looks sensible, but I note that it removes the suggestion that MUC-related stanzas aren’t carbonsed, so needs the below also.

MUC rules:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/7f529e1fb8841cdc16b122bb62539f8e727650b0

I think the ‘must’ here is misplaced, as is all the other normative language. These are generally sensible, although I think telling clients they have to ignore MUCs they’re not in isn’t quite right - giving the user the option to join the MUC on this client too seems quite a sensible alternative. A similar comment applies to the last rule.

Wording tweak:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/c60ec805134b6059ab46a1f75a8802b77fca5a1b

Seems fine.

Requiring servers to implement particular delivery rules:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/9c388a51c61541507c599832038b6562f3d01841

I don’t think this is right, I think we want to allow servers to make their own judgements on what needs carbonsing. This was the consensus compromise we made previously (after considerable effort) to remove the objections to 280 going to Draft. 

/K




More information about the Standards mailing list