[Standards] Business rules of Last Message Correction
kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Jun 11 14:34:10 UTC 2018
On 11 Jun 2018, at 15:20, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 09:15, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I’m not sure that’s necessary, given that the current protocol was
>> designed to allow exactly this.
> Was it? I was reading this whole conversation in the context of:
>> support for this SHOULD NOT be assumed without further negotiation.
Yeah, I meant the protocol rather than the business rules.
> which I assumed meant a new namespace that is advertised alongside the existing one.
Right. I think you can simply add another namespace to disco, and not change anything else, and be guaranteed ok.
> That being said, I'm not against a namespace bump by any means and now that you mention it I'm also not sure that one would be necessary, if we can get away with no new protocol or namespaces I'd be very happy.
More information about the Standards