On 9/27/20 5:45 PM, Holger Weiß wrote:
> I'd prefer a solution that doesn't involve reflecting the entire stanza
> just to make the client aware of the stanza ID.  So if (1) is not an
> option, I think I'd opt for extending XEP-0359 or XEP-0313 (or, if
> people prefer, adding a new XEP) to return an ACK for outgoing 1:1
> messages.  E.g., something like this:
> 
> | <message>
> |   <ack xmlns='urn:xmpp:sid:0' id='42' stanza_id='1234'/>
> | </message>


I'd also slightly prefer something like that, i.e., a Stanza based
acknowledgment mechanism. On the other hand, piggybacking on Stream
Management would also be an option I'd be willing to explore. But
eventually, a Stanza based approach is probably experiencing the least
resistance.

One interesting question is, if this is an extension of
- MAM (xep313)
- Stanza-ID (xep359)
- Carbons (xep280)
- something else

While it does not really matter, I think we should not think of it as an
extension of MAM. The semantics of such an <ack/> would simply be

"I, the server, hereby acknowledge that I archived the message you just
send via the ID X in your accounts personal archive as Y".

That exact archiving protocol that drives the personal archive, MAM in
most cases, does not matter. And, while I know that we all hope that MAM
will be the one thing to rule them all, we should not remove the ability
to experiment with alternative archiving protocols whenever we do not
need to.

IMHO the most important design decision is how this should be enabled.
If this mechanism is explicitly enabled in isolation, then we add
another round trip to the XMPP client to server connection establishing
process, increasing the time further until a connection becomes
"usable". While we can, and probably should specify, a Nonza to solely
enabled this feature, I wonder if it would be worth to have another
Nonza that enables carbons and this together (to bridge the period until
Bind 2.0 is ready).

Another important aspect is probably to clearly specify which ID
'stanza-id' refers to: RFC 6120 stanza IDs or xep359 <origin-id/>s. I
don't think it matters much, what is important is that it is clearly
specified. That said, I think I'd go with RFC 6120 stanza IDs.

- Florian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to