Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Georg Lukas
Kevin Smith : The only RFC6121 rule that needs to go is the re-routing of "chat" messages sent to an unavailable full-JID: §8.5.3.2.1. https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-fulljid-nomatch I think that if we start sending chat messages always to the bare JID, we don’t even need this

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 11.11.2017 12:04, Georg Lukas wrote: > * Florian Schmaus [2017-11-10 21:54]: >>> - bare-JID = all-clients + archive >>> - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection >> >> Which rules of RFC 6121 do you exactly need/want to bend or violate? > > The only RFC6121 rule that n

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Kevin Smith
On 11 Nov 2017, at 11:04, Georg Lukas wrote: > > * Florian Schmaus [2017-11-10 21:54]: >>> - bare-JID = all-clients + archive >>> - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection >> >> Which rules of RFC 6121 do you exactly need/want to bend or violate? > > The only RFC6121 r

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Kevin Smith
On 11 Nov 2017, at 11:01, Georg Lukas wrote: > > * Kevin Smith [2017-11-10 21:31]: >> I don’t think this needs a new session type. It would be sufficient to >> enable these rules when clients enable ‘mamsub’ (for want of a better >> term). > > You are probably right, but my ideas about mamsub s

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Georg Lukas
* Florian Schmaus [2017-11-10 21:54]: > > - bare-JID = all-clients + archive > > - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection > > Which rules of RFC 6121 do you exactly need/want to bend or violate? The only RFC6121 rule that needs to go is the re-routing of "chat" messages

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Georg Lukas
* Kevin Smith [2017-11-10 21:31]: > I don’t think this needs a new session type. It would be sufficient to > enable these rules when clients enable ‘mamsub’ (for want of a better > term). You are probably right, but my ideas about mamsub so far involve changing the routing behavior for messages,

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-11 Thread Georg Lukas
* Daniel Gultsch [2017-11-10 21:15]: > I think there is even a XEP recommending sending to full jids. Do you mean resource locking? As Kev said, we should probably get rid of it for messages but possibly keep it for IQs. > > https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_2.0) > I always advocate simple solution