> I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but to me it looks like > Kev said it would be better to bump this than to have a second > specification, not that changing this spec needs a bump.
"That was my original expectation too, but Kev suggested the bump would be preferable. [...to a second spec.]" There wasn't meant to be an additional implication of the bump being necessary (just that a bump would be preferable to a new spec.) > I must admit I didn't saw this as a possible interpretation of LMC. The > business rules indeed don't say what to do with an LMC that violates the > business rules. It was just the most obvious to me to add it as a new > message. I think this is another point that should be clarified in the > XEP. And if there are any clients that actually delete the message if it > has a violating LMC reference, we might actually need a namespace bump. > Still, I hope this is not the case. The first business rule talks about the ID being required to prevent incorrect replacements being caused by re-routed messages; the implication of this is that it's possible to receive corrections to messages that you never received. (With RMC, older LMC-only clients will see such corrections this way.) So there are two potential responses: present the correction as a new message, or discard it because it's a correction for a message you don't have. Thinking about it now, the first is the more sensible option. But, yes, it's not specified and so should be. And maybe investigate how clients will actually handle this situtation.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
