[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: IM Routing-NG

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Thu Mar 29 10:07:53 UTC 2018


On 29.03.2018 11:02, Manuel Rubio wrote:
> Hi Evgeny,
> 
> El 2018-03-29 07:34, Evgeny Khramtsov escribió:
>>> I was reading XEP-0344 (Impact of TLS and DNSSEC on Dialback). I
>>> understand that's for security connection between two XMPP servers
>>> (S2S).
>>
>> I meant XEP-0334 (Message Processing Hints) of course, sorry.
> 
> I think the most important part of the XEP is the business rules. The
> behaviour for chat, groupchat and normal messages is changed. That's not
> provided by XEP-0334.
> 
> I mean, based on RFC-6121 if I send a message to bare JID, that message
> should be dropped.

It is a little bit more complex than that: It depends on the message
type and state of the receiving entity. A typical IM message wont get
dropped or bounced.

> I saw this XEP isn't compatible with Carbons. So, how is it
> possible solve the issue when a user send a message and you want
> that message goes to all of the connected users for the same bare JID?

AFAIKT if every client enabled im-ng, then the message would go to "all
of the connected users".

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180329/e9345b52/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list