Hi Jefry, Thanks for the feedback.
On 23 August 2012 03:52, Jefry Lagrange <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think the use case with message is enough. It would be more > clear if it had an use case with an IQ. It is not clear how one should > respond to a forwarded IQ. Mmm :) The specification used to be "message forwarding", and the last revision changed it to allow the forwarding of any stanza. I think this is fine, as I understand some protocols may want to forward all kinds of stanza. However outside such a protocol, receiving a forwarded iq doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It certainly shouldn't be treated as an actual <iq> in my opinion. There are far too many problems with that. > Another question would be: Is it possible to bypass the middle man, > once you get the forwarded stanza (in case you need to reply)? In the case of a forwarded message that is displayed to the user - it's the user's choice whether to send a reply, and who to. In the case of any other kind of stanza, or one forwarded as part of another protocol - that's really something specific to that protocol, and not the forwarding mechanism. If there are no objections to my line of thinking, I'll try and clarify the XEP - at least about <iq>s. Regards, Matthew
