88
edits
Difference between revisions of "XMPP 2.0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Current situation: put quotes around the massive qualifier for "multi-device use cases"
m (→Current situation: link to RFC6120 for routing rules to bare JID) |
m (→Current situation: put quotes around the massive qualifier for "multi-device use cases") |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
=== Current situation === | === Current situation === | ||
The [https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-barejid routing rules for stanzas addressed to the bare JID as defined in RFC 6120] are blurry and don’t really match modern always-online but not necessarily in the view of the user multi-device use cases. This is why [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Message Carbons (XEP-0280)] have been invented. They allow a device to tell the server that it wants to receive carbon-copies of all messages received by any resource of an account. This only affects typical chat-related <code><message/></code> stanzas (there are exceptions for certain message types; for presence, there is a well-defined broadcast-to-all-resources mechanism; and IQs can only be addressed to a single resource). | The [https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-barejid routing rules for stanzas addressed to the bare JID as defined in RFC 6120] are blurry and don’t really match "modern always-online but not necessarily in the view of the user" multi-device use cases. This is why [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Message Carbons (XEP-0280)] have been invented. They allow a device to tell the server that it wants to receive carbon-copies of all messages received by any resource of an account. This only affects typical chat-related <code><message/></code> stanzas (there are exceptions for certain message types; for presence, there is a well-defined broadcast-to-all-resources mechanism; and IQs can only be addressed to a single resource). | ||
However, throughout the history of XMPP, there have been XEPs which use messages to send data which is really only of interest for a single resource. Prime examples are [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047)], privacy enhancing protocols such as the (in)famous OTR and (private messages from) [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045)]. This led to Message Carbon rules being hand-wavy and blurry, some of the behaviour being implementation-defined, depending on co-operating clients which do not speak Message Carbons themselves and other unfortunaties. | However, throughout the history of XMPP, there have been XEPs which use messages to send data which is really only of interest for a single resource. Prime examples are [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047)], privacy enhancing protocols such as the (in)famous OTR and (private messages from) [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045)]. This led to Message Carbon rules being hand-wavy and blurry, some of the behaviour being implementation-defined, depending on co-operating clients which do not speak Message Carbons themselves and other unfortunaties. | ||