[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0424 (Message Retraction)

Georg Lukas georg at op-co.de
Tue Jan 4 17:06:40 UTC 2022

* Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> [2021-12-07 19:38]:
> I would like to point out that this specification relies on XEP-0359,
> XEP-0422, and XEP-0428 all of which are deferred. While 0359 is widely
> implemented and probably fine to rely on, I don't believe 0422 is as
> widely used and we should probably let a solution for referencing other
> messages shake out before advancing something that relies on one that
> may not be the final solution.

I fully agree with that.

(Personally, I'd just love to see origin-id disappear and have modern
clients use @id consistenly everywhere to reduce the amount of
ambiguity. However, I'm not going to veto just because of this)

> I also just think that fastening is unnecessary in this context;
> retract can just include the stanza ID directly, no need for all the
> extra protocol.

I understand that some server developers have a creative use case for
fastening as a generic mechanism to make logical connections between
different messages, but I think that each of the different logical
connections requires its own business rules that can not be generalized
into something that's less frightening than XSLT.

Until we have sorted that out, I'm not sure if fastening fastening to
our protocols is a good idea.

I also very much like the simple syntax of XEP-0308 and I think it would
be fully adequate for the use case of message retraction. I'd even go as
far as suggesting an LMC payload as part of the fallback for 0424 to
accomodiate clients that do 0308 but don't do 0424 ;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20220104/ec711117/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list