On 13.02.2017 15:29, Georg Lukas wrote:
* 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
Thanks for clarification, but then still, why two? if <private/> is
still required to avoid bump, why not to stick to that? Especially if,
as it was pointed out in referenced thread - they have different
semantic, but XEP expects them to provide same outcome within
specification/implementation.
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
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
