On 10 November 2017 at 19:57, Georg Lukas <ge...@op-co.de> 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 mentioned before, I really like this approach. But I just don't currently see a sensible migration path. An "XMPP 2.0" server is still going to have to deal with remote entities sending stuff to a local user's full JID that the user wants to receive on all devices. > We could use message hints to explicitly mark exception from this, e.g. > <no-archive/> for transient (CSN) messages to be routed to all clients. Also, it's growing on me that 'no-copy' is harmful. At least, no-copy should always imply no-archive. Luckily hints are just hints :) And that brings me to my final bit of feedback. You mentioned that Carbons and MAM still leave certain decisions up to the implementation, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It's allowing us to have this conversation about what a sensible implementation should do with that freedom, and when we've decided, we can standardize it. I much prefer building-block XEPs that follow this approach. The ones that try to solve everything at once end up needing to be replaced a few years down the road. Regards, Matthew _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
