I would like to point out that this specification relies on XEP-0359, XEP-0422, and XEP-0428 all of which are deferred. While 0359 is widely implemented and probably fine to rely on, I don't believe 0422 is as widely used and we should probably let a solution for referencing other messages shake out before advancing something that relies on one that may not be the final solution.
I also just think that fastening is unnecessary in this context; retract can just include the stanza ID directly, no need for all the extra protocol. Because of this I'd be against this advancing at this time. That being said, my answers to the questions we always ask are below: On Tue, Dec 7, 2021, at 10:51, Jonas Schäfer wrote: > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? Yes > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > and requirements? Yes > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > why not? Not anytime soon, I'm hoping for other changes to be made to this spec first (see above). > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? It is probably worth mentioning in the security considerations that the context of a conversation can appear to be changed if you don't include a tombstone in the client as well to show that something was removed. > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? Yes. —Sam -- Sam Whited _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
