Kevin Smith

Sorry for the delay, thanks for your patience. I've not been able to think of a reason moving to 424 in principle wouldn't work, but I think there might be...

I don't think the assertion that this doesn't need a bump is right. Removing `` is an interop issue.

This /does/ reveal information about whether the message has been archived though, which is itself a thing you might not want?

This makes me wonder whether we should drop the 359 use and go back to just using a MAM-specific ID. It's not clear to me why reducing from MUST NOT...

If we don't assume that a MAMming entity injecting an ID means that the message has been archived, we're going to have things going badly wrong with archive lookups. So...

No activity in four years.

@valeriansaliou @stpeter This needs author, are you ok with this? (I'll eventually reach out by email if I don't get a response here)

No activity in years.

No activity in years.

Seems to have conflicts.