[Standards] Query Regarding MUC XEP-0045

Matthew Wild mwild1+jig at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 00:40:42 UTC 2008

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
 >  Registered with the room or with the service? Do we need to
 >  differentiate between the two? If you are registered with the room then
 >  you are a member, whereas nick registration has meaning across the
 >  service. Compare Section 7.10 of XEP-0045, where you register with the
 >  room, to registration with the service.

 Good question... the problem I see is that all this is very
 implementation dependent. ejabberd at least doesn't allow you to
 register a nick in a room, and it isn't explicitly specified in the
 XEP (which says the server can send a data form).

 If you are a room member, this is visible already anyway, so I am
 edging towards registration with the whole service (unless we
 implemented both).

 >  > The reason I believe this is needed is because the lack of it makes nick
 >  > registration fairly useless in anonymous rooms. If someone can see
 >  > that a user's nick is registered, they have a certain level of
 >  > assurance that the next time they see this nick, it is the same
 >  > person. Without this knowledge it may as well be someone completely
 >  > different.
 >  >
 >  > Currently I don't believe there is any way to tell, which means that
 >  > even if you register your nick on a service, it provides little
 >  > benefit (unlike it would on IRC/NickServ).
 >  The only way to tell is by trying to register the nick yourself. And
 >  that seems rather silly. :)

 Ah yes, there is that (a method I have used before, and even
 considered adding to HAL as a hacky workaround).

 >  I see two approaches:
 >  1. If someone is registered, the service includes a flag in their
 >  presence broadcast -- something like the following:
 >  <presence
 >     from='darkcave at macbeth.shakespeare.lit/thirdwitch'
 >     to='crone1 at shakespeare.lit/desktop'>
 >   <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'>
 >     <item affiliation='member' role='participant'/>
 >   </x>
 >   <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'/>
 >  </presence>

 Seems ok...

 >  2. The service enables you to check if someone is registered:
 >  <iq from='crone1 at shakespeare.lit/desktop'
 >     id='check-nick-1'
 >     to='macbeth.shakespeare.lit'
 >     type='get'>
 >   <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'>
 >     thirdwitch
 >   </registered>
 >  </iq>
 >  If the nick is registered, the service returns an IQ-result, otherwise
 >  it returns an error (<item-not-found/> if the nick is not registered,
 >  <service-unavailable/> if the protocol is not supported):
 >  <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit'
 >     id='check-nick-1'
 >     to='crone1 at shakespeare.lit/desktop'
 >     type='result'/>
 >  OR
 >  <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit'
 >     id='check-nick-1'
 >     to='crone1 at shakespeare.lit/desktop'
 >     type='error'>
 >   <error type='cancel'>
 >     <item-not-found xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
 >   </error>
 >  </iq>

 Also ok...

 I'm wondering which would be more convenient from a client UI perspective.

 A new element in presence is a new overhead, but if you want to know
 up-front who is registered, we don't want clients to have to query
 each user in every MUC they join.

 In my use case I don't mind querying (I only want to know about people
 I interact with) and the same for HAL's use case (checking that the
 user is the same person, when he isn't in a position to know their


More information about the Standards mailing list