[Standards-JIG] MUC, PEP and caps. Was: MUC presence issues

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Tue Oct 10 09:45:54 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:21 +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2006, at 10:01, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> > I still have to do a bit of catch-up on the discussion on PEP, but I
> > don't like the implicit subscription to nodes using caps, that is
> > suggested in section 9 of XEP-0163. Certainly in the case of MUC, I am
> > afraid it will generate a lot of unused/unwanted notifications. I  
> > don't
> > think we have fully thought trough the interactions between MUC and
> > pubsub, but am willing to be proven wrong.
> I think it's probably ok because one doesn't aquire a presence  
> subscription to the members of a muc room, and as such PEP isn't  
> going to fire off the notifications. From the same section:
> """
> Also, note that this works only if the account owner has a presence  
> subscription to the contact and the contact has a presence  
> subscription to the account owner.
> """

I don't think this is true in MUC context. You get all presence packets
from the occupants in the room, including caps. I.e. unless the client
omits them, or leaves of exts for MUC specifically. The subsequent disco
requests are passed on to the client on their real JID and returned to
the requestor in the room. From then on, you will get these
notifications via the room.




More information about the Standards mailing list