[Standards-JIG] JEP-45 error if try to revoke ownershipprivileges of room's only owner

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sun Jun 20 11:57:10 UTC 2004


Ian wrote:
> > Should JEP-0045 specify that each room should have at least one owner?

> The JEP already states that there should be at
> least one owner - check out "9. Owner Use Cases"

That is good. My bad. Thanks Dave for taking the time to point it out. :)

Should the JEP specify which error response the server should send when the
only owner tries to remove their own ownership privileges?


> Note that the owner is a permanent part of the room.

Yes, the word 'permanent' does seem to contradict section "9.4 Revoking
Ownership Privileges" and section "5.2.2 Changing Affiliations" amoungst
others.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that, in order to be JEP-0045
compliant, an implementation does not have to enable editing the list of
room owners. As I understand it, this creates two distinct scenarios:

1. Only one 'permanent' owner - the user who created the room. In this case,
owners may only be changed by a system administrator using a proceedure that
is outside the scope of the JEP.

2. Multiple 'semi-permanent' owners. The user that created the room is the
initial owner. Any owner may grant/revoke ownership privileges. An owner may
eventually remove ownership privileges from the creator of the room (since
there are many scenarios where this is desirable).

The word 'permanent' that Dave pointed out in the first sentence of "9.
Owner Use Cases" is qualified by the example at the end of the sentence.
However, at least from my understanding of the JEP, the term
'semi-permanent' (as used in section 5.2 Affiliations) would be more
appropriate.

The same paragraph states that "only *the* room owner has the right to
change defining room configuration settings such as the room type". Perhaps
"only *a* room owner" would be better, especially since the next sentence
says "Ideally, room *owners* will be able to specify not only the room
types"

These two changes might be minor, but they seem to be creating some
confusion between Dave and I on the MUC mailing list.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list