[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed May 31 09:57:04 UTC 2017


On 31 May 2017 at 10:46, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> 2017-05-31 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>> On 31 May 2017 at 10:25, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>> 2017-05-30 23:48 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>>>> On 30 May 2017 at 22:33, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>>>> That subelement could be in the namespace of the XEP that adds it.
>>>>> I'm fairly certain that this shouldn't cause problems for any half way
>>>>> decent implementation.
>>>>
>>>> It's the less than halfway decent implementations I'm more concerned about.
>>>>
>>>> It might be worth giving it a go to see what happens.
>>>
>>> It's worth pointing out that this will primarily affect
>>> implementations that implement SM or CSI. I think it's fair to assume
>>> that all implementations that implement those are above the 'halfway
>>> decent' threshold.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to create PRs for the following three changes if we hereby
>>> agree that we want to handle it this way.
>>>
>>> 1) Add wording to XEP-0203 that the delay element MAY contain either
>>> character data that provide a natural language description OR an
>>> element of a different namespace describing the reason for the delay.
>>
>> Only the latter, please. I could be persuaded into having a <text/>
>> element or some such if people *really* want that, but I wouldn't want
>> text-or-element anywhere if I can avoid it.
>
> Well that's kinda the problem here. The delayed delivery XEP already
> has the MAY add a natural language description wording.
> And implementations seem to use that as well.
>

Ah... I totally missed that.

>>
>>> 2) Add a section to XEP-0353 that the server SHOULD add a delay
>>> element to delayed message and presence stanzas that MUST contain a
>>> <csi/> element
>>> 3) Add a section to XEP-0198 that the server SHOULD add a delay
>>> element to delayed messages and presences which MUST contain a <sm/>
>>> element
>>>
>>> (I think SHOULD wording in doesn't require a namespace bump. But I'm
>>> willing to go with MAY)
>>
>> I'd go MAY/SHOULD to avoid a namespace bump.
>>
>> Is there any reason a client shouldn't add these delay stamps too?
>> Seems sensible particularly for messages.
>
> Well some clients already do. For example when resending messages
> after a SM timeout.
> But that's a different story isn't it? Or would you like me to add
> wording to XEP-0198 that clients MAY add stamps when the resend
> something?
>

I think it's worth documenting.

> cheers
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________


More information about the Standards mailing list