On 22 Feb 2018, at 11:46, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 February 2018 at 12:34, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote:
>> While I’m not high-F on this, my reasoning is:
>> For some reason we think that entities broken in this way are likely common
>> enough to be worth discussion in the spec.
>> If such things are likely, it makes sense to do what is best for the
>> not-broken implementation and user experience.
>> If an entity is broken in this way, it is likely to be persistently broken,
>> and just reconnecting will result in the same error again.
>> So to avoid continual reconnections, just treating it as an ack-all avoids
>> the good entities getting continual disconnections, and users being unable
>> to get messages through.
>> But, as I say, not high-F.
> Users not being able to get messages through, _without them realizing_ is
> what caused me to suggest this change in the first place. For me, the
> downside of that outweighs a potential server-sided issue with continuous
Standards mailing list