* Ruslan N. Marchenko <[email protected]> [2017-02-12 16:33]: > No, the no-copy use is ambiguous. Are private and no-copy equivalent? Are > they complementing each other? what is the server behaviour when only one of > them is provided? > I personally am in favour of <private/> order for owner and no-copy hint for > remote party. And then - should server always strip <private/> before > routing? Should it replace it with <no-copy/> hint?
This has been discussed already in the previous "last" call: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/83 and https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-September/030288.html As there was no consensus two years ago, I just added both elements to 0280 in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/382 The rationale is to ensure widest compatibility without a namespace bump: - a client complying to the latest version adds both elements - a server interprets the message as no-carbons-please if either element is present I don't think there is a use-case where you only want to prevent a local forwarding to your other client, or only a remote forwarding to the receiver's other clients. For OTR at least, you want both. Georg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
