[Standards-JIG] Re: Groupchat using original jid's

Jens Mikkelsen gyldenskjold at mail.dk
Tue Oct 26 15:44:47 UTC 2004

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 00:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> In article <36070.3911436305$1098732478 at news.gmane.org>,
>  Jens Mikkelsen <gyldenskjold at mail.dk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 20:54, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> > > > Is there a standard for groupchat, where the group isn't administrated
> > > > by the server or where the original jids are used?
> > > 
> > > MU-C in a non-anonymous room includes the real JIDs in the presence 
> > > packets.  It is therefore possible to map the room-resource format 
> > > nicknames to the real JID.
> > 
> > Hmmm... Ok. I haven't heard of the MU-C before. I have looked at
> > jep-0045. To me it seems, that the server administrates this group,
> > hence it could, if compromised, send the wrong JID's to the users.
> > Thereby I had to trust the server, to be sure to get the right JIDs,
> > right?
> You can always run your own server + groupchat service. Jabber/XMPP is 
> not one centralized service like MSN or AIM.

I know the server isn't centralized, but what I was aming at, was
creating an encrypted IM with jabber, which should work for everyone,
also people who doesn't run a server. Therefore I decided on, that the
server shouldn't be trusted. 

> > What I was looking for, was something where the client was an
> > administrator and the server, was a dummy forwarding packages. Then I
> > could digatally sign the messages and the user JIDs. I hope I am making
> > my self clear.
> The current model in Jabber/XMPP is for the groupchat service to 
> function as a dumb reflector but handle the room administration. This is 
> in keeping with the Jabber philosophy of keeping clients simple:
> http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0134.html#simple
> A better way to handle this would be for clients to sign messages and 
> presence sent through the room, as Justin mentioned.

I am reading the book Instant Messaging in java - The jabber protocols
by Iain Shigeoka. Here the groupchat protocol is described, so that the
JID's is anonymous. This is a problem, when the asynchronic keys are
based on the JID.
I haven't studied the the MU-C completely yet, but this seem reasonable.
I will studie this further before deciding on this to be sufficiant.

> /psa
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig
Jens Mikkelsen <gyldenskjold at mail.dk>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20041026/e6d4fa38/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list