5 Jul
2024
5 Jul
'24
4:49 p.m.
Hello!
XEP-0045 Section 9.1 defines that:
- a user cannot be banned by an admin with a lower affiliation.
- if an admin or owner attempts to ban himself, the service MUST deny the
request.
Section 9.2, that deals with modifying the ban list of a room (potentially
applying changes that affect more than one participant) does not mention
these cases. It stands to reason that similar definitions must apply.
To me, this raises the question of dealing with ban list modification
requests that contain both 'valid' as well as 'invalid' modifications. I
do
not believe that the XEP clearly specifies how to deal with these. I would
think that the entire request is to be rejected (as opposed to only the
'valid' modifications' be applied). Can we add this explicitly in the XEP?
Kind regards,
Guus
8 Jul
8 Jul
7:05 p.m.
Hallo Guus,
On 7/5/24 8:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hello!
XEP-0045 Section 9.1 defines that:
- a user cannot be banned by an admin with a lower affiliation.
- if an admin or owner attempts to ban himself, the service MUST deny
the request.
Section 9.2, that deals with modifying the ban list of a room
(potentially applying changes that affect more than one participant)
does not mention these cases. It stands to reason that similar
definitions must apply.
Yes, I think Section 9.2 should at least refer back to the rules already
defined in Section 9.1.
To me, this raises the question of dealing with ban
list modification
requests that contain both 'valid' as well as 'invalid' modifications. I
do not believe that the XEP clearly specifies how to deal with these. I
would think that the entire request is to be rejected (as opposed to
only the 'valid' modifications' be applied). Can we add this explicitly
in the XEP?
Because I believe there is no easy way to communicate to the sender
which parts of the modification request are valid and which are invalid,
I suggest that none of the requested changes should be applied until the
request is corrected.
Peter
9 Jul
9 Jul
6:23 p.m.
Thanks Peter,
That seems like a sensible change. I have prepared a corresponding
modification of the XEP here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1359
Kind regards,
Guus
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 7:05 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
Hallo Guus,
On 7/5/24 8:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hello!
XEP-0045 Section 9.1 defines that:
- a user cannot be banned by an admin with a lower affiliation.
- if an admin or owner attempts to ban himself, the service MUST deny
the request.
Section 9.2, that deals with modifying the ban list of a room
(potentially applying changes that affect more than one participant)
does not mention these cases. It stands to reason that similar
definitions must apply.
Yes, I think Section 9.2 should at least refer back to the rules already
defined in Section 9.1.
To me, this raises the question of dealing with
ban list modification
requests that contain both 'valid' as well as 'invalid' modifications. I
do not believe that the XEP clearly specifies how to deal with these. I
would think that the entire request is to be rejected (as opposed to
only the 'valid' modifications' be applied). Can we add this explicitly
in the XEP?
Because I believe there is no easy way to communicate to the sender
which parts of the modification request are valid and which are invalid,
I suggest that none of the requested changes should be applied until the
request is corrected.
Peter
137
days inactive
141
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Guus der Kinderen -
Peter Saint-Andre