On 26 July 2014 16:53, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeile...@isode.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > This doesn't invalidate your arguments entirely, but it may well suggest > that RFC 6120 has a technical flaw that needs addressing. > > > That RFC 6120 text is misleading if not outright bogus. It implies that > ids have some uniqueness when in fact they may not, even in one particular > stream. > > I agree it's probably leaning very heavily on the idealistic side. > But worse, it's wrong. An entity originating an error or result stanza is > obligated to use the id the error or result is in response to. So the > value is not always up to the originating entity of the error or result > stanza. > > This, too. > I have no objection to Georg's most recent revision to XEP 45. > I think it's probably the right choice for message stanzas which are immediately retransmitted. IQs almost certainly need special handling, and I'm not sure that presence ought to have the same id, since those stanzas are repeated. I suspect that history messages ought to be allowed to have ids allocated by the server. I suspect that applications requiring such behaviour may need this advertised as a disco feature on the room and/or service. I also note that intermediaries may be changing ids; such intermediaries probably ought to be handling MUC especially and might need a note. Dave.
