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

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Tue Oct 26 19:41:58 UTC 2004


> Further:
> The groupchat is described like an IRC and this is allso what the
> rfc3921 says.
>
> Now I will not implement an IRC groupchat where you can stay anonymous.

groupchat = old and busted
MU-C = new hotness

Seriously, if you want to do anything more than really basic groupchat, 
work with MU-C for your server 'group chat' component and just don't 
provide the 'anonymous' feature, and make all your rooms 
non-anonymous[1].  You will notice that non-anonymous rooms include a 
'jid' in the MU-C <item/> portion of the presence.  This jid is the 
person's real JID (or at least, what JID they're coming from).

Given that you're writing a Jabber client specifically to implement 
some customized encryption stuff, you don't need to worry about older 
clients not supporting MU-C instead of groupchat; those same clients 
probably wouldn't support your custom encryption stuff anyway, right?  
So given that you have the jid in the <item/> already, you should be 
able to use the digital signatures just fine.

Beyond that, I don't really understand your comment (snipped from what 
I quoted) that groupchat uses a 'roster.'  It uses a roster in the 
generic sense ('a list of people') but not a roster in the actual XMPP 
sense ('jabber:iq:roster' containing JID, nickname and group).

Maybe if you could explain better to folks what you're trying to do?  
It seems like you want:

* A group-chat (i.e. where you can join and send out one message, it 
goes to many people, you get replies back)
* With real JIDs (like MU-C in non-anonymous mode)
* And encryption or digital signing (sort of like the OpenPGP presence 
and message signing)

...yet you seem to feel like the server cannot handle the groupchat.  
If you want a truly distributed groupchat where no server is involved 
after the initial exchange, then I'm afraid you're going to need to 
define your own JEP for 'distributed decentralized groupchat' or 
something.  But keep in mind that then, instead of sending /one/ 
message to a room and everyone getting it, the onus of sending a 
message to everyone in the virtual 'chat room' will be on each person's 
client, rather than on the server.  (Unless you're supporting extended 
stanza addressing[2], which I'm not certain any servers yet support.)

I hope that helps.

--
1: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0045.html#enter-nonanon
2: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0033.html

-- 
Rachel 'Sparks' Blackman -- sysadmin, developer, mad scientist
"If it is not broken, give me five minutes to redesign it!"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20041026/1a235f4a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list