On 2/24/23 8:47 AM, Tedd Sterr wrote:
The original sender of a message stanza SHOULD give it id=UUID.
Unfortunately, this wasn't a requirement in the RFCs, so now we have
various hacks to try to deal with that because we can't just fix the
problem while maintaining compatibility.
At some poi
I generally like the idea of the MUC assigning the id to it's outgoing
messages instead of using the id proposed by the occupant sending the
message.
I also think that if we all agreed that we want that, we could migrate
to that situation in a backwards-compatible manner: the #stable-id
feature, a
I think there may be some confusion and we're not even disagreeing about the
same things; so, I'll state my thoughts more clearly.
The original sender of a message stanza SHOULD give it id=UUID. Unfortunately,
this wasn't a requirement in the RFCs, so now we have various hacks to try to
deal wi
On 22/02/2023 20.59, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> …this is the line of thought that neglects that we are working on a
> federated system where we can not assume that every actor is faithful.
> ID assigned by the sending entity can potentially be observed by another
> malicious actor and be reproduced
On 22/02/2023 20.00, Marvin W wrote:
I believe we only disagree if a reference to a stanza should also
contain the 'by' attribute. [And probably about our vision if groupchat
messages should be stored in as many archives as possible or just in the
groupchat service's archive. But we should sim
