[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)

Ruslan N. Marchenko me at ruff.mobi
Tue Jul 14 21:49:21 UTC 2020


Am Dienstag, den 31.03.2020, 20:38 +0000 schrieb Jonas Schäfer:
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> XEP-0280.
> 
> Title: Message Carbons
> Abstract:
> In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation,
> outbound messages are carbon-copied to all interested resources.
> 
> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html
> 
> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
> 2020-04-08.
> 
> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
> send
> your feedback to the standards at xmpp.org discussion list:
> 
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
> 
> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
> introduction
> and requirements?
> 
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> why not?
> 
> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
> 
> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
> 
I know it is expired LC and I have answered to this or previous one but
I have a question, now that I'm adding some unit-tests to the
implementation.
The sections 7 & 8 are referring to RFC 6121 for message delivery and
mentions the CC should be after delivery. In 7 kind of implicitly, in 8
ambiguous, 'and' could mean 'and then' or 'and also'. The question is -
what happens for unsuccessful delivery in 8, where often we don't even
know whether delivery will ever succeed (eg s2s fails). 

There's last sentence in first abstract of section 8 saying "Note that
this happens irrespective of whether the sending client has carbons
enabled." - should it be expanded with "and whether delivery for the
sent message succeeds."? Which would mean for 8 we CC on incoming
message on c2s (and for 7 on delivery completion as it is now).
My current implementation is actually doing both on delivery completion
but unit test fails because temporary test instance does not have s2s
(could be done but too much pre-staging for a simple test).
--rr



More information about the Standards mailing list