[OASIS Issue Tracker] (MQTT-301) Metadata: CONNACK Retained messages supported

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=63562#comment-63562 ] 

Ed Briggs commented on MQTT-301:
--------------------------------

Ken,
   If a server can simply ignore the RETAIN flag in the CONNECT and PUBLISH messages that arrive before it sends a CONNACK, and it can also  ignore RETAIN after sending a CONNACK with a RETAIN Unavailable advertisement on some, but not necessarily all messages, should we just say that implementing RETAIN is not a mandatory requirement for compliance with MQTT 5.0?   I'm not trying to be flippant here, I am having difficulty imagining how to specify this kind of 'maybe sometimes'  or 'client has to guess' behavior in normative text.

> Metadata: CONNACK Retained messages supported
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MQTT-301
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-301
>             Project: OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: core
>    Affects Versions: 5
>            Reporter: Brian Raymor
>            Assignee: Ed Briggs
>              Labels: Proposed
>
> This was discussed in MQTT-276 with notes from the F2F meetings and has been tracked in MQTT-256. 
> I'm opening a separate, specific issue per Ken's comments - https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-256?focusedCommentId=62192&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-62192:
> "All of these would be defined in separate JIRAs, but what we should do in this JIRA is to define the mechanism used to pass these values."



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)