XSF Discussion - 2012-08-25

Kev

I did understand your email

what do you mean by AOL>

?

"Me too"

oh

I went to urban dictionary and it says: Ass on lips

or something like that

Kev, I think the forwarding mechanism should be clear enough so that other protocols won't have their own version of what the forwarding mechanism should do

I'm not sure what you mean.

forwarding messages is easy, forwarding IQ is not intuitive

I still don't follow.

Forwarding an IQ is no harder than forwarding a message.

maybe it is a forged stanza, maybe IQ is false

in that case we want to tell the other person that we are answering a forward IQ

You can't answer a forwarded IQ.

so that if he says that he don't know what we are talking about

yea, you are right I used the wrong words

when we reply to the requested information to the original sender

You mean that A sends B an iq, B forwards to C and C replies to A?

yes

Right, you can't do that.

why?

so does it has to go through B to get to A

iqs are full jid to full jid

If you reply with a different full JID it's not going to work.

ha

so does it has to go through B to get to A

It depends what you're trying to do.

just answer the requested information in the IQ

B doesn't have that information so it asks C

But why do you want forwarding to do that.

because A doesn't know C

B doesn't have that information so it asks C

Right.

You don't need forwarding for B to ask C.

hmm...

yea thats right

There may be rare situations in which forwarding an iq might make sense, but none come immediately to mind and there's no sensible way to address imaginary requirements in any sensible manner.

If there's a new protocol that needs iq forwarding, it will need to explain what the semantics are.

Just like any protocol forwarding messages will need to explain what the semantics are.

yep, thanks that's much clear now