Sounds nothing that can be answered without a specific context (e.g. in context of a specific XEP and use case)
What we could do is list the different IDs and its attributes and a recommendation for the use case in which they are good and bad and why. For Example Message ID: - Not Unique - Chosen by the sender Should not be used: - Whenever its critical to identify a specific message Can be used: - Whenever it does not hurt to identify a wrong message, or if there is another attribute that in combination allows to identify the correct message (e.g. LMC Attribute "It must be the last message sent/received") Recommendation: Do not use for new XEPs, if for a use case a XEP needs to depend on client generated IDs (Non-MUC), use origin-id. Just an example, i do not claim correctness on this example. Regards Philipp On Tue, Dec 24, 2024, at 16:32, Dave Cridland wrote: > Hi all, > > Further to the note in the LC thread on XEP-0424, I'd really like to have a > document (XEP, probably) that answers these questions: > > What are the risks of choosing an stanza identifier that is not unique? > > Does this still matter if the stanza identifier is unique to the session? To > the sending jid? To the bare jid of the sender? > > What about missing off the stanza id attribute entirely? > > What about MUC? PubSub? Etc? > > If people have opinions, write away, and I'll volunteer to collate these into > a XEP (or, possibly, a patch against XEP-0359). > > My reasoning is that we seem to vaguely know things can get Bad, but I for > one can't find where we've documented these Bad Things. I'd be delighted to > be corrected, as ever. > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
