On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 18:23, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08.01.19 17:00, Jonas Schäfer wrote: > > On Dienstag, 8. Januar 2019 16:50:43 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > >> * Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> [2018-12-14 16:18]: > >>> I think adding a distinct feature is a good idea. Even if clients don’t > >>> act on it (I’m not sure what they could (not) do by knowing that the > >>> server does (not) support it), it is useful to meter the deployment in > >>> the wild. > >>> > >>> I suggest to use ` > http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#self-ping-optimisation` > <http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#self-ping-optimisation>. > >> > >> That's perfectly fine with me. Should this go into the MUC domain > >> disco#info, the MUC room disco#info or both? > > > > MUC room is best, I think. > > I would lean towards advertising it at the MUC service address. It is > essentially a MUC service implementation feature and hence I doubt that > we ever have the case that this feature is only enabled for a subset of > rooms. > For sure, but the feature itself pertains to the room. Client implementations need to look at room features anyway for MAM etc - it might be worth having a caps-a-like for MUC, though. > > - Florian > > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
