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

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

2017-11-10 Thread Diane Trout
On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 20:57 +0100, Georg Lukas wrote: > I think that routing and persistence belong together (a persistent > message SHOULD be delivered to all clients, eventually) in the > general > case, but there are probably exceptions like CSN, which might not > need > to be persisted. As an

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

2017-11-10 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 10.11.2017 20:57, Georg Lukas wrote: > We could separate routing+persitence from the message type as far as > possible, e.g. by explicitly using the resource identifier: > > - bare-JID = all-clients + archive > - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection > > This would b

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

2017-11-10 Thread Matthew Wild
On 10 November 2017 at 19:57, Georg Lukas wrote: > We could separate routing+persitence from the message type as far as > possible, e.g. by explicitly using the resource identifier: > > - bare-JID = all-clients + archive > - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection As ment

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

2017-11-10 Thread Kevin Smith
On 10 Nov 2017, at 19:57, Georg Lukas wrote: > > Hi, > > Hello, this is part 3 of the thread about how broken XMPP is > , > today we are going to cover Message Types. > > There are five different well-defined message types th

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

2017-11-10 Thread Daniel Gultsch
2017-11-10 20:57 GMT+01:00 Georg Lukas : > We could separate routing+persitence from the message type as far as > possible, e.g. by explicitly using the resource identifier: > > - bare-JID = all-clients + archive > - full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection Yes I think that

[Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types

2017-11-10 Thread Georg Lukas
Hi, Hello, this is part 3 of the thread about how broken XMPP is , today we are going to cover Message Types. There are five different well-defined message types that influence how a message is stored and forwarded by servers a

Re: [Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing

2017-10-04 Thread Kevin Smith
On 4 Oct 2017, at 07:01, Georg Lukas wrote: > there is a number of open issues with how message routing currently > works for the IM use case, and where it doesn't work consistently > because of different patches (Carbons, MAM) that we have applied over > time to modernize it. > > XEP-0280 has be

[Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing

2017-10-03 Thread Georg Lukas
Hello, there is a number of open issues with how message routing currently works for the IM use case, and where it doesn't work consistently because of different patches (Carbons, MAM) that we have applied over time to modernize it. XEP-0280 has been Last-Called twice in the last two years, and i