20 Feb
2026
20 Feb
'26
4:08 p.m.
Le mardi 20 janvier 2026, 11:49:09 heure normale d’Europe centrale Goffi a écrit
:
Sure, and I did agree with your arguments on group: I
plan to update the
spec
to remove the dedicated group node to use the same
thing as in roster (I
just
don't do it know so the spec is not changing while
council members are
checking it).
Actually the situation changed after council discussion. We are now talking of
not making the e2ee mandatory anymore, in other words, this specs could be
used to store extended metadata for any contacts, with a dedicated node for
e2ee version (so the client choose which data must be e2ee and which one can
be known from the server).
In this condition, I think that the separated group make sense for the
original reasons I did it:
- use an ID instead of the group name to identify it, so it can be renamed
without breaking anything based on groups (like access control for instance)
- extra metadata can be added to groups, like description, and probably other
things in future XEPs
So I would like feedback here, what do people think? Is it better to keep it
simple and just using a group with a name like we do in roster, or should we
improve it and have the possibility to add cleanly metadata?
I'm thinking that the latter is the best option now that group can be known by
server or other services, but I would like to have feedback.
Best,
Goffi