> On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <pe...@andyet.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> The Message Archive Management spec (XEP-0313) seems to assume that a message 
> archive will live on the server where a user has registered an account. This 
> raises privacy and security concerns, especially if the messages are not 
> encrypted: as a user I might not want all that message history on the server 
> in case it gets hacked, and as a server admin I might not want the liability 
> of holding all those messages, either. (In fact, as someone who runs a very 
> large public IM service, I can assure you that I do not want to have all 
> those messages entrusted to me!)
> 
> Ideally, to me, my message archive would be stored on a trusted device that 
> is under my control (say, a limited-access storage medium that I keep in my 
> house). This device could authenticate to my account and advertise its 
> existence to my other resources. Using Carbons (XEP-0280) it could obtain 
> copies of all the messages I send and receive. When one of my messaging 
> devices wants to retrieve message history, it would do so by querying this 
> trusted storage device, not the server (which only handles messages for 
> purposes of realtime delivery).
> 
> I would really like to see the wording in XEP-0313 adjusted to take this 
> scenario into account. I am happy to propose text.

I think MAM should be mostly accessing server maintained archives.   If the 
archives are maintained by some other entity, such as a client under the 
control of a user, some other extension is needed to address the particulars of 
this scenario. For instance, discovery (the advertisement you noted above) 
would be completely different.  I rather not attempt to detail this scenario in 
XEP 313.  I don’t see any particular need to change XEP 313 text to enable a 
client to offer MAM services.  I think that’s already allowed.  For instance, 
Section 7 says “If a server or other entity hosts archives and supports MAM 
queriers…”.

— Kurt

> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/

Reply via email to