Hi,
> I get your point. But it feels wrong to define nearly identical > extension elements in two XEPs. The author of xep334, Matthew Wild, > already expressed his willingness to change xep334 so that it can be > re-used in xep280. Therefore I'm all for changing xep334, then issue a > last call for it, ideally advance it to draft, then issue another last > call for a xep280 version using xep334 elements, and finally advance it > to draft. Speaking of reusing: Why not just re-use XEP-0079 here? http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html#description-match-resource action="drop" value="other" should do the same as <no-copy/> or <private/>. In general XEP-0334 seems to have overlapping parts with XEP-0079, e.g. <no-store/> vs. action="drop" value="stored". Actually I am in favor for not having two XEPs with the same use cases. - Christian
