[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue May 30 13:59:39 UTC 2017


2017-05-30 15:48 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>:
> On 30 May 2017, at 14:00, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> I noticed that some CSI implementations (and maybe some SM
>> implementations as well) add a delayed delivery tag where the from is
>> set to their own domain.
>
> Before making spec changes, it’d probably be a good idea to work out why they’re doing this, and what it buys us.
>
> So,
> 1) Why is it good to shove <delayed/> on CSI?
>
> 2) Why is it good to shove <delayed/> on SM resumption? (198 talks about stamping already, but in the context of failed delivery).
>
> My first thought for both is that <delayed/> has some traditional semantics and that putting it on 198/352 would be unhelpful, but I’m open to being wrong.

Both for the same reason. Both can delay stanzas (most importantly
messages) and your client should be able to discover when those
stanzas where actually received. Otherwise messages received when
resuming a session will all show the same time stamp. It might be
debatable if CSI and SM should create extra syntax for this? I don't
really see why but I can be convinced.

cheers
Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list