On 2/28/10 5:44 AM, Tuomas Koski wrote: > > On 27 February 2010 06:26, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ### >> >> 3. Reliability >> >> This document defines a protocol that enables a sender to ask the >> recipient to return a receipt for a message. Although the return of a >> message receipt lets the sender know that the message has been >> delivered, there are many reasons why the sender might not receive a >> receipt immediately or at all, including but not limited to the following: >> >> * The recipient (or the particular intended resource to which the >> sender addressed the message) does not in fact support message receipts. >> * The intended resource supports message receipts but the >> recipient's server delivers the message to another resource that does >> not support message receipts. >> * The recipient's client receives the message but experiences a >> malfunction before generating a receipt. >> * The recipient returns a receipt but the receipt is lost on the way >> back from the recipient to the sender (e.g., because of connectivity >> issues or software failures at any hop). >> >> Therefore this document does not define a protocol for complete >> reliability or guaranteed delivery, and those who implement and deploy >> this protocol need to be aware of its limitations. >> >> ### >> >> Is that text acceptable? > > +1
Thanks, Tuomas. Kevin Smith said he had some feedback about this proposed text, so we're waiting for him to post to the list before the Council approves version 1.1 of XEP-0184. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
