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

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 18:01, Philipp Hörist <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Right, but simply supporting the reporting element "somewhere" isn't a
feature that drives a behavioural change. So advertising it doesn't mean
clients can do something - you need to advertise a usage of it.

I understand that advertising a feature does serve the purpose of simply
advertising - that is, literally marketing - but the core feature of
feature advertising is feature negotiation, and that's perfectly
satisfied by the current XEP.

So all we could do - if we wanted - is to make it clearer *in the namespace
name* that this one is for reporting in blocking. But that's a breaking
change for something that's really just cosmetic.


> 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]
>

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