Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-10-03 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 03.10.2016 10:08, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 2 Oct 2016, at 18:47, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> >> On 30.09.2016 18:12, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridl

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-10-03 Thread Kevin Smith
On 2 Oct 2016, at 18:47, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > On 30.09.2016 18:12, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> >>> On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On 29 Sep 2016

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-10-02 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 30.09.2016 18:12, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-30 Thread Kevin Smith
On 30 Sep 2016, at 17:25, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 30 September 2016 at 17:12, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> >>> On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On 2

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-30 Thread Dave Cridland
On 30 September 2016 at 17:12, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: > > On 29 Sep 201

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-30 Thread Kevin Smith
On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:01, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17, Dave Cridland wrote: > (And please, fol

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-30 Thread Dave Cridland
On 30 September 2016 at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: >> > >> > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17, Dave Cridland wrote: >> > > (And please, folks, unless you can think of something I can't, a >> > > rando

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-30 Thread Kevin Smith
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: > > > > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > (And please, folks, unless you can think of something I can't, a > > > randomish string prefix and a counter is fine). > > > > The dan

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-29 Thread Dave Cridland
On 29 Sep 2016 22:00, "Kevin Smith" wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17, Dave Cridland wrote: > > (And please, folks, unless you can think of something I can't, a > > randomish string prefix and a counter is fine). > > The dangers of using counters in stanza IDs and leaking information :) Yes, q

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-29 Thread Kevin Smith
On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:17, Dave Cridland wrote: > (And please, folks, unless you can think of something I can't, a > randomish string prefix and a counter is fine). The dangers of using counters in stanza IDs and leaking information :) /K ___ Standards

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-29 Thread Dave Cridland
On 28 September 2016 at 17:38, Kevin Smith wrote: > Sadly not, 6121 says > " It is up to the originating entity whether the value of the 'id' >attribute is unique only within its current stream or unique >globally.” Equally, absolutely nothing stops a client issuing globally-unique (or a

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-29 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 29.09.2016 12:55, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 27.09.2016 11:06, Tobias M wrote: >>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith >> > wrote: What do you think? Do you have further comments on this issue? >>> >>> I think there’s also a concern that different resources

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-28 Thread Kevin Smith
On 28 Sep 2016, at 21:18, Tobias M wrote: > >> >> On 28 Sep 2016, at 18:38, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >> On 27 Sep 2016, at 10:06, Tobias M wrote: >>> >>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith wrote: > However, it has little discussion on why there is this restriction. While >>

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-28 Thread Tobias M
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 18:38, Kevin Smith wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 10:06, Tobias M > wrote: >> >> >>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith >> > wrote: >>> However, it has little discussion on why there is this restrictio

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-28 Thread Kevin Smith
On 27 Sep 2016, at 10:06, Tobias M wrote: > > >> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >>> However, it has little discussion on why there is this restriction. While >>> it certainly is a MUST for security reasons in MUC situations where >>> different full JIDs are different account

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-27 Thread Tobias M
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 00:33, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> However, it has little discussion on why there is this restriction. While it >> certainly is a MUST for security reasons in MUC situations where different >> full JIDs are different accounts (i.e. associated to different bare JIDs), >> it is

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-26 Thread Kevin Smith
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 12:39, Tobias M wrote: > > Hi, > > Under 4. Business Rules XEP-0308 mentions: > >> A correction MUST only be allowed when both the original message and >> correction are received from the same full-JID. > > However, it has little discussion on why there is this restricti

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-20 Thread Georg Lukas
* Dumaine, Xander [2016-09-20 19:20]: > While I can understand the use case, I also believe it’s low value compared > to potentially negative consequences. I'm interested in the possible side effects. Could you please outline the potential consequences you see? Georg signature.asc Description

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-20 Thread Dumaine, Xander
While I can understand the use case, I also believe it’s low value compared to potentially negative consequences. I think at most this could change from MUST to SHOULD in order to encourage the full-jid restriction, and prevent the can of worms from opening too far, but allowing the use case for

Re: [Standards] XEP-0308: Last Message Correction and Carbons

2016-09-19 Thread Georg Lukas
* Tobias M [2016-09-16 13:41]: > What would speak for allowing edits across resources: +1 for allowing this use case. I think it would improve the consistency of the XMPP UX, and increase user confidence. > Another case is where a server sends different carbons messages to different > resources