On Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2018 10:28:01 CET Kevin Smith wrote: > On 26 Feb 2018, at 15:59, Simon Friedberger <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, lest this discussion just die. Here is a proposal: > Thanks for the proposal. Bashing follows. > > > Client-A generates message-ID based on HASH(connection_counter, > > server_salt). The connection_counter needs to be maintained only for > > one connection. The server salt is server generated, anew for each > > connection and is sent to. > > > > Server-A checks that this is correct and uses it for MAM. This > > should make life easier for clients because they only need to deal > > with one ID. > > I think stopping servers being able to use their own IDs for DB storage is > probably disadvantageous. Although I see the appeal of a client knowing its > own MAM IDs, I’m not sure that simply knowing it is sufficient - you also > need to know where it fits into the order of the archive, if you’re going > to use it for archive sync, so I’m not sure this is actually buying > anything, at the cost of of lack of flexibility in server implementations.
Good point about the order. This essentially means that we need a reflection. Self-carbons essentially. At which point we can simply let the server generate the ID(s). kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
