[Standards] request for reviews: XEP-0045 v1.25rc5

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Sep 19 18:47:35 UTC 2011

On 8/19/11 1:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 18.08.2011 23:00, schrieb Alexander Holler:
>> Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an
>>> effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last
>>> version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these
>>> revisions before the end of September or possibly early October, so it
>>> would be great if folks could check the diff in the next few weeks:
>>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0045/diff/1.24/vs/1.25rc5
>>> A rendered version is here:
>>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0045-1.25.html
>> Thanks for the update. I will try to read (again) as much as I can.
> Here is my current list of open questions:
> - Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members)
> - Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?

Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners
and admins are not reserved automatically, unless an implementation
decides that is a nice feature.

> - What happens with reserved nicks when someone changes his nick? Does
> the reserved nick changes too?

Implementation specific.

> I don't know why fully-anonymous rooms got removed, according tothe
> history this was done 2002. But I think there are good reasons for rooms
> where even moderators or owners shouldn't be able to see real JIDs. E.g.
> thinking about countries where people have to fear speaking freely
> without beeing anonymous. There might be possibilities to discover real
> JIDs when access to the machine running the service is available, but if
> someone (a owner or moderator) doesn't have such, he can't be get under
> pressure to reveal real JIDs because he just can't see them.
> So here are my 2¢ for in regard to fully-anonymous rooms:
> - muc_fullyanonymous in service discovery is missing,
> - make a note about problems with fully-anonymous rooms, e.g how to ban
> someone without revealing his jid in the list of outcasts, how to remove
> an outcast if the outcast was done based on the nick only, possible
> solution: outcasts with a timeout). Besides removing outcasts, I think
> anything else could be handled through the use of nicks only.
> To not having the need to define how fully-anonymous rooms are handled,
> maybe the xep could just list the value 'none' for whois (no change
> needed), add muc_fullyanonymous to service discovery and say everything
> else in regard to how fully-anonymous rooms are handled (if supported)
> is implementation specific.

Feel free to write and submit a proposal for fully anonymous rooms. IMHO
this is out of scope for XEP-0045, and has been since 2002. We are
trying to *not* add new features to XEP-0045 at this point, and in fact
to remove features if they are not used.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Standards mailing list