[Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types
daniel at gultsch.de
Fri Nov 10 20:14:59 UTC 2017
2017-11-10 20:57 GMT+01:00 Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de>:
> We could separate routing+persitence from the message type as far as
> possible, e.g. by explicitly using the resource identifier:
> - bare-JID = all-clients + archive
> - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection
Yes I think that makes sense.
Will probably break a few old clients because old clients love to send
normal messages to full jids instead of bare jids.
I think there is even a XEP recommending sending to full jids.
> This would bring us closer to the initial RFC6121 rules, but wouldn't be
> quite compatible with them or with Carbons/MAM, so it would require
> something like a new session type to work correctly (see also
I always advocate simple solutions. (See my <transient/> proposal.)
and this proposal is - in some ways - even simpler.
I'm really not sure how the transition to 'XMPP 2.0' would look like thought.
Also if we want to introduce some breaking changes it is very
important to find the right balance between doing to much (and thus
working on that for more than a decade (looking at you IRC3)) and
doing too little (and thus having to redo the whole damn thing)
> We could use message hints to explicitly mark exception from this, e.g.
> <no-archive/> for transient (CSN) messages to be routed to all clients.
More information about the Standards