On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:40:30AM +0200, Maxime Buquet wrote: > On 2019/09/23, JC Brand wrote: > > Based on our off-list discussion, I'm going to go with sending an IQ to the > > MUC > > JID in order to ask for a message to be retracted. > > > > The MUC then sends out the retraction message to all participants. This > > solves > > the problem of temporary moderators retracting messages and clients then > > later > > being unable to verify that the operation was done by someone with the > > necessary permissions. > > > > The MUC can then decide to replace the message with a tombstone in its > > XEP-0045 > > message history or in the MAM store. > > > > I guess for MAM tombstoning the MAM service needs to advertise it via disco > > and > > the client needs to specifically ask for it in the IQ? > > > > When it comes to one-on-one conversations, I'm not sure what the equivalent > > interaction would be given that there isn't a dedicated service as in the > > case > > of MUC and because two MAM archives are involved. Perhaps sending the > > retraction message yourself (instead of asking for it to be sent via an IQ) > > is > > the preferred way there. > > > > I'd be happy to hear some suggestions. I'm leaning towards restricting > > the scope of this XEP to only MUCs (and MIX?) and ignoring the one-on-one > > usecase entirely. > > What about looking at it the other way around? 1:1 being the general > case and MUC something that modifies/enhances it. > > In 1:1, one would be able to send a retraction, referring to a previous > message that has been sent with the same barejid. I think this should > also be possible in MUCs. > > Additionally in MUCs, one could send an IQ to the room so that the MUC > itself broadcasts it to all participants of that room.
I don't like the idea of there being two ways of doing the same thing in a MUC. IMO there should be only one way of doing this, and given that sending the retraction message yourself can cause problems with verifying validity, I think it should only be via an IQ. For 1:1, sending a message yourself appears to be fine. It's a bit unfortunate that we then don't use the same semantics (i.e. stanzas) for both use-cases, but I don't see currently how we can reconcile them. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
