Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0377 (Spam Reporting)

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:10, Dave Cridland wrote:
> The feature is specific to reporting via blocking already. Section 3 begins:
> Entities that support Service Discovery (XEP-0030) [2] and abuse reporting using the blocking command as defined in this spec MUST respond to service discovery requests with a feature of 'urn:xmpp:reporting:1'.
> 
> There's no behaviour associated with the report syntax except for blocking, so it doesn't need another feature.
> 
> I would hesitate before suggesting that one XEP should add a "sub namespace" to another's, I think that could get very confusing very fast.
> 
> If we had another consumer of reports, then we'd have another feature for that mode of consumption (or production, I suppose).

Yes im aware that this generic namespace is specific for functionality with blocking command now.
I think the text regarding that is clear enough in the XEP.

But i think its a missed chance to choose a namespace that semantically makes more sense. Clearly separating the definition of the generic element, from the implementation in a specific context.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026, at 18:06, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> I agree with everything except this. Why is it insufficient to say "if you 
> support both blocking and reporting then you support reporting in blocking" ?

I wrote insufficient, when i believed it was intended that other future XEPs also are supposed to announce urn:xmpp:reporting:1, but it seems the author is aware and it was intended that no other XEP can announce this feature, because it is bound to blocking command.

Regards
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]