Hi Goffi, Some feedback for the proposal: I don't really like the design to put a reference to another node's item into the NodeID of the attachment node. XEP-0060§12.14 seems to discourage such hierarchy semantics in the NodeID and suggests using XEP-0248 instead, although this probably doesn't really fit the usecase here. Having a specification be seemingly compatible with "bare" pubsub but at the same time designing it such that if the pubsub server would not have special handling, it would be severely flawed (and I consider so possibility of impersonation as severely flawed) is weird to me. Maybe it would be better to require what the proposal calls full compliance and have it announced as a feature, so that clients can discover compliance and only support attachments on compliant servers.
Alternatively it could be worth considering other designs - e.g. I'd think it might be a good idea to publish attachments on a pubsub node owned by the person doing the attachment (similar to how replies in microblog work already), which would make impersonation attacks already impossible by design (it would also help against malicious pubsub servers impersonating other users, which full compliance still allows for). Pubsub attachments seem to be a very generic thing and not very specific to the noticed and reactions included with the XEP right now. Rather than having those two in the same XEP, I think it would be nice to have them developed and specified independently (and especially under their own namespace). As far as I understand, the noticed marker is very similar to the XEP-0333 acknowledged marker. Even if it has slightly different meaning and having a dedicated noticed marker is desirable, it seems to be of similar semantics as XEP-0333 acknowledged marker. The summarizing functionality could also be useful for other purposes then pubsub attachments (e.g. some MAM collation feature), so having them merged (= essentially adding the summarizing logic and a description how to use it with pubsub attachments into XEP-0333) would save everyone from the burden of specifying the same things twice. The same also applies to XEP-0444 for reactions. I see you already put up a PR to have the new reactions elements syntax match mostly the one in XEP-0444. The summarizing issue of reactions has also already been discussed on this list. So again this feels like it could be better to merge this in the existing XEP. I don't think any of this would hinder the proposal from being accepted as experimental, knowing though that handling some of the things I mentioned will require breaking changes. Marvin On Jul 13 2022, at 5:03 pm, Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote: > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > Title: Pubsub Attachments > Abstract: > This specification provides a way to attach elements to a pubsub item. > > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-attachments.html > The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this > proposal as an official XEP. > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
