[Standards] XEP-0313 for transports

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Mar 4 15:33:32 UTC 2020


On 26 Feb 2020, at 17:24, Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> 
> On Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2020 16:40:06 CET Ivan Vučica wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sometimes, protocols backing transports may support querying for an
>> archive similar to how it's done with XEP-0313.
>> 
>> tl;dr Can querying archives on non-own, non-MUC, non-pubsub JID for
>> 1:1 chats be standardized? Can it be standardized that server
>> implementations don't have to support date-based queries?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. XEP-0313 is specified for archives maintained by the user's own
>> server. Section 3.3 doesn't specify that a client can query a remote
>> JID for the archive, which would be useful for transports. It does
>> specify it for MUC and pubsub, but not for 1:1.
>> 
>> Here I'm mainly interested: Are there clients that would query a
>> remote JID for the archive today, despite XEP-0313 not requiring
>> servers nor clients to support this? Under which conditions would they
>> do this?
> 
> Ugh. No, I don’t think any client would query a remote JID for 1:1 archives. 

Why not? MAM’s just a mechanism for querying archives for messages, surely it shouldn’t matter where the archive is?

As concrete examples of when it might make sense to query non-MUC, non-private archives:
* An appropriately privileged user querying the archives of other organisation members (e.g. HR in case of harassment cases)
* A system that presents a single outgoing JID that is controlled by several users (e.g. shift workers handling a support address)

While it might not be a standard personal IM-client feature, I don’t think that means it’s not valid, or that we need to disallow it.

/K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200304/eea5df74/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list