On 7/17/12 2:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> 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. >> >> In Sections 4.1 and 4.2, we use the word "trust", which I find to be >> void for vagueness and thus impossible to operationalize. IMHO it would >> be better to phrase this in terms of how the receiving entity needs to >> behave (e.g., drop the message without showing it to a human). > > "An entity cannot trust that forwards are genuine when receiving them > unprovoked (i.e. outside the scope of another specification) and > SHOULD NOT process them automatically." > > ?
That's better. Even more neutrally, we could say something like this: "An entity SHOULD NOT automatically process unsolicited forwards that it receives outside the scope of another protocol." Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
