On 18.01.2017 14:05, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 17 Jan 2017, at 22:09, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: >> On 17.01.2017 16:23, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. >>> Title: Bind 2.0 >> >> I could live with Bind2 being hardcoded to MAM and Carbons. But is there >> any particular reason why the <bind/> step should not be a flexible >> atomic mechanism for resource binding and performing arbitrary actions? >> >> Something like >> >> <bind xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind2:0'> >> <action type="urn:xmpp:mam:1"/> >> <action type="urn:xmpp:carbons:2/> >> <action type="foo:bar"/> >> … >> </bind> > > Dave has similar desires (going further than this, I think), and I don’t > think they’re a bad idea. I just wrote what I thought was the minimal > complexity to solve the issue. I noted in the body of the XEP that I > anticipate aspects of the protocol changing over time - but I feel that one > could implement what’s currently in the document (not saying which carbons > version notwithstanding) and be done with most of the work such that a > protocol change later would be close to trivial.
I feel like it is so trivial to change bind2 towards a flexible approach that it's worth having that specified right from the beginning. I could imagine use cases where I want MAM but not Carbons. Or MAM, Carbons and SM, Or just MAM and Carbons. And I'm curious what Dave further desires. @Dave: Care to drop a few lines to elaborate? - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
