Sounds like a really nice hack. A recombination of presence, disco and MAM to gain a totally different user experience.
+1 for the idea :) Not sure where to put this though. How about XEP-1337 Hacks :D 2015-04-18 5:24 GMT+02:00 Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeile...@isode.com>: > > > > 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/ > >
