[Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Sat Nov 11 11:41:31 UTC 2017


On 11.11.2017 12:04, Georg Lukas wrote:
> * Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> [2017-11-10 21:54]:
>>> - bare-JID = all-clients + archive
>>> - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection
>>
>> Which rules of RFC 6121 do you exactly need/want to bend or violate?
> 
> The only RFC6121 rule that needs to go is the re-routing of "chat"
> messages sent to an unavailable full-JID: §8.5.3.2.1.
> https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-fulljid-nomatch

"If there is one available resource with a non-negative presence
priority then the server MUST deliver the message to that resource."

That is a tough one. Even if clients signal/negotiate that this rule
should be ignored by the server, it would possibly break the senders
expectations. Therefore the sender has to signal that he wants your
semantics when using messages-to-full-jid. And, iff all sessions of the
recipient signal your semantics, the recipients server could do what you
want if the message-to-full-jid is annotated, while additionally being
able to perform a reasonable, i.e. RFC compliant, fallback if the
message annotation is not there.

That could work while being RFC compliant, although it sounds awfully
complex. But if that is what is required to stay RFC compliant…

Maybe I'm missing something?

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 642 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171111/0b24dff8/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list