[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Carlo v. Loesch CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Thu Apr 3 13:31:36 UTC 2008


Dave Cridland typeth:
| more practical. Indeed, having chains of sub-MUCs becomes practical,  
| since either the MUC is public, or potentially a chain can be set up  
| with bilateral agreements, which is effectively how IRC and PSYC  
| operate.

Actually no, there is quite a difference in how conference control
is designed in the two technologies.

With IRC each server has full conference control over a channel on the
network - each one of them can say XY is an operator and YZ is banned.
In the case of netsplits there are various logics to figure out which
side is authoritative, but if the server is evil, it can always say
its users started that channel somewhere around 1970 and thus have the
authority over the channel.

PSYC has a context master (theoretically more than one, but we didn't
implement any of that). One server hosting the context program which
defines the conference control for the chatroom. All nodes that are
involved in distributing the context to its members may be entitled
to perform certain jobs on his behalf, but the protocol always makes
it clear who has the authority.

That is quite a dramatic difference. By having full MUC implementations
interconnect it sounds a bit like there is a chance you'll run into
the authority problems IRC has with its distributed conference control.

By taking the distribution efficiency problem deep into details
of MUC and pubsub you are looking into opening large cans of worms
instead of keeping things simple and providing for a fundamental
one-to-many routing plan first, methinks.




More information about the Standards mailing list