On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Holger Weiß <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'd be interested in feedback on this. Personally, I'd still prefer > referring to MAM, as I think the client should to be fully aware of the > implications of enabling that option, especially in private rooms. If > we ever come up with another archiving XEP that supports XEP-0045, > chances are the archiving semantics and access rules will be different. > And it should be no problem for clients supporting future XEPs to use > new MUC configuration options if necessary. > > However, if others prefer "roomconfig_enablearchiving", I'll update my > PR¹ accordingly. > I changed my mind, use roomconfig_enablemam or whatever. > > > So what's the way forward? Shall I provide an updated PR against > > XEP-0045, or against XEP-0313, or something else (e.g., others suggested > > putting all XEP-0045 configuration options into a separate registrar's > > list)? > > While I understand how moving the configuration options into a separate > document might be nice, I'm probably not the right person to make this > happen, and I'd be grateful if this idea wouldn't block the addition of > an option to enable MUC MAM. If people agree with such an option, can > we just put it into XEP-0045 until someone moves things around? > Guess XEP-0045 is fine, it already has a pubsub specific config uption, so why not MAM too. Further things missing in this change though are: - possibly adding a status code for this, there is one for public logging after all ( 7.2.13 Room Logging ), but this is probably not a requirement - a reference to this option in section 13.3 Privacy, it sounds worthy enough to mention there If that's done i'm +1 for the change. Cheers, Tobi
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
