On 7/16/12 1:29 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 16 July 2012 18:10, Justin Karneges > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Monday, July 16, 2012 09:53:02 AM you wrote: >>> On 7/16/12 10:49 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 16, 2012 08:35:59 AM Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>> I've just reviewed XEP-0297 (Stanza Forwarding) and I think it looks >>>>> good. One small comment, it would be good to describe briefly the kinds >>>>> of extensions that might re-use this format, and specifically to cite >>>>> draft-miller-xmpp-e2e. >>>> >>>> I also wonder if we could restrict the namespace of the wrapped stanza to >>>> always be "jabber:client". >>> >>> What if servers forward or encapsulate server-to-server stanzas? I could >>> definitely see a use for that in debugging or incident reporting. >> >> Then they'd be converted to "jabber:client" before encapsulation. I bring >> this >> up because this is how the various e2e proposals have tended to work, and >> ensures clients don't have to deal with multiple namespaces. > > This does make some sense. In Prosody a stanza is most of the time > detached from its parent namespace, and in fact our MAM plugin already > unconditionally sets jabber:client. I can't think of a case where you > would need it to be jabber:server, even for the use-cases Peter > brought up.
No strong objections here. > I know top of my list for XMPP 2.0 (1.1??) would be a single namespace > for all stream types :) Of course, XMPP 2.0 would be JSON, so no namespaces required. ;-) /psa
