[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Jonas Wielicki jonas at wielicki.name
Wed May 31 10:27:32 UTC 2017

On Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2017 10:35:46 CEST Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 31 May 2017 at 10:25, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> > 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.

I would like to mention that adding a SHOULD was reason enough to reject 
changes to MUC (as it would require a namespace bump noone wanted) a few 
months back.

kind regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170531/8a64d631/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list