[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: IM Routing-NG

Manuel Rubio manuel at altenwald.com
Wed Mar 28 21:12:03 UTC 2018


I was reading XEP-0344 (Impact of TLS and DNSSEC on Dialback). I 
understand that's for security connection between two XMPP servers 

I understood that IM-NG is a new way to route messages to JIDs with the 
same feature activated. Thinking about that, why sending the message to 
the bare JID isn't enough?

I mean, at this moment if I connect two clients with the same priority 
and send a message to their bare JID, the same message should arrive to 
both of them. Why this NG is better?

I think it could be better if instead of NG is RG (Resources Group) or 
GoR (Group of Resources). I disagree completely to use something la 
"modern" (modern age was betwen 1500 and 1800) or New Generation... if 5 
years later you want to create another new generation it will be called 
NNG (New New Generation)?

Kind regards.
Manuel Rubio.

El 2018-03-28 20:13, Evgeny Khramtsov escribió:
> Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:18:36 -0000
> Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>> Title: IM Routing-NG
>> Abstract:
>> This specification provides a new set of routing rules for modern
>> instant messaging.
> Not sure why XEP-0344 can't be used for this. We just need to set
> <no-copy/> in Example 6 and for other cases we need to introduce new
> <copy/> element and a server's disco feature (I would rather use stream
> feature, but one can argue it should be negotiated blah-blah-blah).
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________

More information about the Standards mailing list