-
MattJ
But... do we need <good-id/>? What does it help, really?
-
MattJ
I don't know if the additional semi-useless payload on every message stanza is worth it
-
Ge0rG
exactly my question.
-
Ge0rG
And I don't see how disabling features on messages that lack it is going to benefit the ecosystem
-
MattJ
XMPP has a history of (rightly or wrongly) being called bloated, but mandating duplication seems a step in the wrong direction
-
jonas’
<good-id/> would not carry an actual ID value, AIUI
-
jonas’
and servers could translate <message id="$x"><origin-id id="$x"/></message> to <message id="$x"><good-id/></message> easily, fwiw
-
MattJ
The current proposal AIUI is not to spec good-id but mandate origin-id == @id
-
MattJ
Which I think is logically sound, only on the premise that we MUST have good-id at all
-
MattJ
Which I dispute
-
jonas’
I'm confused by the statement
-
MattJ
Which one?
-
jonas’
> Which I think is logically sound, only on the premise that we MUST have good-id at all
-
jonas’
are you saying you don't see a need for the concept behind origin-id at all?
-
MattJ
I am
-
jonas’
why not?
-
Ge0rG
I'd rephrase that as "the benefits of origin-id don't outweigh the drawbacks"
-
MattJ
It was added as a workaround for one buggy MUC implementation that isn't even common on the network (and I think has been fixed now✎ -
MattJ
It was added as a workaround for one buggy MUC implementation that isn't even common on the network (and I think has been fixed now) ✏
-
MattJ
Ge0rG [09:32]: > I'd rephrase that as "the benefits of origin-id don't outweigh the drawbacks" Sure, I can go with that
-
Ge0rG
the rationale presented yesterday was that it's a marker to enable advanced functionality on the receiving side, like editing and referencing messages.
-
MattJ
I see why people might want it, but not why we need it at this price
-
MattJ
I think we can live with broken clients being broken
-
jonas’
alright, fair
-
Ge0rG
and the larger problem I see with that is that it will cut off many clients with good-enough @id's from advanced functionality
-
jonas’
MattJ, thanks for clarifying
-
MattJ
We have a slot for this already, we just need people to use it properly, which practically every modern implementation already does
-
MattJ
But this is effectively giving up on it, adding a new duplicate slot to every message to fix a very minor uncommon issue
-
MattJ
And we have to spend the next decades explaining to people why we did this
-
daniel
To be clear. I'm fine with killing it. What I said yesterday was meant as 'if we want to keep orgin id we should mandate message id==origin id'
-
MattJ
Yes, I totally agree that it's the sensible way to do it, if we do it
-
MattJ
I just really would rather we didn't
-
MattJ
If it fixed a security issue, I could get behind it (or another solution)
-
Ge0rG
so we do a Last Call, reject the XEP, remind the author to completely remove <origin-id>, and start from scratch?
-
Ge0rG
No wait, we do an LC and MattJ writes those very eloquent words of rationale to the ML.
-
MattJ
Happy to
-
Ge0rG
MattJ: I hope you've copied that wall of text into a draft email already :D
-
MattJ
I can do it when I'm at my laptop 🙂