[Standards] Message Retractions

Andrew Nenakhov andrew.nenakhov at redsolution.com
Wed Sep 4 09:44:27 UTC 2019


We have a fairly big protoXEP for message retraction and deletion,
it's implemented on our upcoming server, and in Xabber for Web. It's
working admirably well under most conditions: if the client is online
or offline, and if the entity uses own or remote message archive. The
only downside is that it offers no legacy fallback at all, but it can
be added rather easily once we decide on the fallback method.

However, this method is 'server-centric', cause it requires a server
to calculate edit versions so that offline clients can check it there
were edits while they were away. It also introduces upgrade over MAM
so we finally CAN delete messages from it.

Sadly, documents for the moment are available only in Russian, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oLud7l9DYZb2fUvSDdcJugs_5es0jw-9KBPZVptUHA/edit
I guess google translate would translate most of it rather well, and
If anyone's really interested I can muster myself up and speed up
translation to English.

ср, 4 сент. 2019 г. в 14:22, JC Brand <lists at opkode.com>:
>
> Hi folks
>
> I'm going to implement message retractions for Converse.js and while
> researching what's available XEP-wise I came across this proposed
> XEP from Lance Stout:
>
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-retraction.html
>
> It's from 2016 and was never accepted (i.e. assigned a XEP number).
>
> I searched the standards list archives and found a thread where it was
> discussed: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-October/031506.html
>
> I also found a later thread (2018) about message corrections where people were
> discussing putting message retractions in XEP-308 (Last message correction).
> https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-June/035154.html
>
> I don't see any specific reason in the archives why the XEP wasn't advanced,
> except that apparently enthusiasm for it fizzled out.
>
> I'm not the author of the proposed XEP, but I'd like to see whether this can be
> moved forward and I hereby offer to make any changes necessary to get it
> accepted (unless Lance would like to do so himself).
>
> Given that the proposed XEP is fairly old, there are a few things I'd like to
> add to it to bring it up to date with latest practices.
>
> These are:
>
> * Mandate support for XEP-0359  Unique and stable stanza ids)
> * Mention XEP-0421 (Anonymous unique occupant IDs) as an alternative to
>   including the user's JID in the tombstone (section 4 example 5).
> * Allow admins to see the original (now retracted) message when they receive
>   the tombstone from MAM.
> * Allow for supplying a reason why the message was deleted.
>
> Concerning the question of putting this XEP inside an updated XEP-0308, I
> propose keeping message retractions in a separate XEP, for these reasons:
>
> * We want MUC/MIX admins to be able to retract other occupants' messages
>   (but not "correct" them).
> * A message can be corrected multiple times, but retracted only once.
> * Message retraction has different implications for MAM than corrections.
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
>
> Regards
> JC
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________



-- 
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, redsolution, OÜ
https://redsolution.com


More information about the Standards mailing list