[Standards] Carbons of XEP-0184 Receipts (Was: XEP-0280 (Carbons) proposals)

Philipp Hörist philipp at hoerist.com
Mon Nov 19 16:39:49 UTC 2018


Gajim uses type=chat only (so they will get carbon copied)

And Gajim still trys to do resource locking

regards
Philipp

Am Mo., 19. Nov. 2018 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb Jonas Schäfer <
jonas at wielicki.name>:

> On Mittwoch, 7. November 2018 10:19:44 CET Georg Lukas wrote:
> > So I spent another half hour today debugging why the green checkmark on
> > my outgoing messages only appeared on two of my three clients for one
> > contact, and only on one of my clients for another contact(*). It turned
> > out to be standard compliant behavior.
> >
> > XEP-0184 indicates (but doesn't mandate) type=normal for Receipts, which
> > is followed by most implementations. And thus, Receipts don't fall under
> >
> > Carbon rules:
> > | A <message/> is eligible for carbons delivery if it is of type
> > | "normal" and it contains a <body> element.
> >
> > There is an old PR to improve the Carbons rules
> > <https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434> but it doesn't address this
> > specific case:
> >
> > * Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> [2017-06-01 13:55]:
> > > Modern clients send bodyless messages with 0085 CSNs and 0184 ACKs to
> > > provide additional communication metadata. There is value in
> > > carbon-copying both of these message types, but there might be existing
> > > use-cases for bodyless messages where carbon-copying would do harm.
> > > Because I don't know all the use-cases for bodyless messages, I
> struggle
> > > to provide a rule for how to handle CSNs and ACKs.
> >
> > As XEP-0409 (IM Routing-NG) doesn't see wide adoption yet, I'd like to
> > move forward with improving 0280 / 0184, by one of the following:
> >
> > a) make 0280 apply to all 'normal' messages to a bare JID (akin to
> > Routing-NG) and state in 0184 that the Receipt should go to bare-JID.
> >
> > b) explicitly mention in 0184 that for chat content the Receipt should
> > also be of type=chat.
> >
> > c) All of the above.
> >
> > As 0280 rules are weasel-worded, changing them doesn't require a
> > namespace bump. In 0184 there is no mandate of the recipient JID form
> > (bare/full) nor the message type, so adding Business Rules for those
> > shouldn't require a bump either.
>
> I like to make '280 work more closely to what we expect IM-NG to do
> (option
> a), because it will give us more confidence in that IM-NG does the right
> thing.
>
> I also like to have the type of messages related to a conversation not
> flip-
> flop from one type to another, so type='chat' looks sensible to me (option
> b).
> So maybe write in '184 to mirror the type which was used for the message
> in
> reply to which the receipt is? Anything wrong with that (slightly more
> generic) approach?
>
> So all in all, I’m in for (c).
>
> kind regards,
> Jonas_______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20181119/e8d66c3f/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list