[Standards-JIG] Council decision on "Simplified MUC" proposal

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 8 00:03:53 UTC 2005


On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:20:55AM -0800, JD Conley wrote:

> For example, it is very useful to get and set multiple items in the
> #owner namespace with one request.  Our implementation does this today
> in its management console.  If a namespace was added to the disco
> features of the component to signal that the MUC+ features were
> supported I don't see the harm in using existing MUC namespaces where
> appropriate and where there would be no impact to existing
> implementations.

In my opinion as JEP author and based on my experience as a service-wide 
admin on all of the jabber.org and xmpp.org MUC services, owner editing
of an existing room configuration, including adding or removing room
admins and owners, is a relatively rare occurrence. Modifiying the MUC
protocol to optimize for infrequently-used features is unnecessary, I
think. Thus I would disagree that getting and setting multiple items in
the #owner namespace with one request is truly useful.

Now, if you want to see a lot of stanzas fly by, log into my account and
watch all the service discovery traffic! If you want to minimize network
traffic, that's the first place to look. (But even there I would argue
against optimizations, since we'd just be back to iq:browse...)

> Forgive me if I misunderstood the intent of the Council.

Gosh, it's not as if the Jabber Council is the College of Cardinals or
something -- deference is not required. :-)

/psa




More information about the Standards mailing list