jonas at wielicki.name
Wed Feb 28 09:35:06 UTC 2018
On Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2018 10:28:01 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2018, at 15:59, Simon Friedberger <simon.jabber at a-oben.org> wrote:
> > So, lest this discussion just die. Here is a proposal:
> Thanks for the proposal. Bashing follows.
> > Client-A generates message-ID based on HASH(connection_counter,
> > server_salt). The connection_counter needs to be maintained only for
> > one connection. The server salt is server generated, anew for each
> > connection and is sent to.
> > Server-A checks that this is correct and uses it for MAM. This
> > should make life easier for clients because they only need to deal
> > with one ID.
> I think stopping servers being able to use their own IDs for DB storage is
> probably disadvantageous. Although I see the appeal of a client knowing its
> own MAM IDs, I’m not sure that simply knowing it is sufficient - you also
> need to know where it fits into the order of the archive, if you’re going
> to use it for archive sync, so I’m not sure this is actually buying
> anything, at the cost of of lack of flexibility in server implementations.
Good point about the order. This essentially means that we need a reflection.
Self-carbons essentially. At which point we can simply let the server generate
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Standards