Re: [Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples
On 21.02.2017 22:00, Kim Alvefur wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote: If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == . No, the current account is assumed, so ... In MAM case archiving node for the user is user's bare jid - hence proper addressing should be ... ... this is equivalent. https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#rules-noto If the server receives an IQ stanza with no 'to' attribute, it MUST process the stanza on behalf of the account from which received the stanza, [...] Ops, ok, thanks for pointing out, now need to review if I messed it up in some recent implementations. *sigh* --RR ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples
Hi, On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote: > In the examples across XEP-0313 the IQs are all to-less. > > If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server > itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == id='1'/>. No, the current account is assumed, so ... > In MAM case archiving node for the user is user's bare jid - hence proper > addressing should be ... ... this is equivalent. https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#rules-noto > If the server receives an IQ stanza with no 'to' attribute, it MUST > process the stanza on behalf of the account from which received the > stanza, [...] -- Regards, Kim "Zash" Alvefur signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] MAM: misleading archiving node in examples
Good evening, In the examples across XEP-0313 the IQs are all to-less. If I understand it right - in absence of 'to' attribute on c2s - the server itself is assumed as a recipient - i.e. == to='example.org' id='1'/>. In MAM case archiving node for the user is user's bare jid - hence proper addressing should be type='set'>... While both - server and bare are supposed to be handled by server, the semantic is different - one is executed on behalf of the user and another on behalf of the server. So to recap - disco example targets bare jid - i.e. it's bare jid (storage node) which supports mam, and if it is implemented as separate service - querying server for archive is a bit misleading. prefs on the other hand should be handled by server but then - shouldn't server as well respond to disco#info with mam feature - as indicator of supported prefs at least perhaps? Regards, Ruslan ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
