[Standards] XEP-0280 (Carbons) proposals

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Jun 8 10:35:12 UTC 2017


On 2 Jun 2017, at 08:59, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> On 1 June 2017 at 12:51, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I have to disagree. The current wording is inadequate for a network
>> protocol specification: it does not provide any consistency between
>> implementations, leading to subtle differences in observed behavior and
>> to user confusion.
>> 
>> Carbons is now over seven years old, so all server implementations
>> should have figured out their rules by now, or at least a set of rules
>> which we can make mandatory. I can see how creating such a mandatory
>> rule set might have been an issue back at the inception of the XEP, but
>> right now, we should have the accumulated knowledge to nail it, finally.
> 
> It would be very useful if server developers implementing Carbons
> could take a look at these proposed rules and see how well (or badly)
> they match reality.
> 
> That would be extremely beneficial, I think, in obtaining a clear idea
> of whether these rules are right or not.

I think they might partially match current reality (at least some of them aren’t what we’re doing), but not where we would like reality to be in a short time. So I think leaving the weasel words in is desirable. I also think that it’s not harmful - while tying down a single set of requirements might be possible (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth), I don’t think it’s actually required.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list