[Standards] Suggestion for XEP-0045 : permit alias for the MUC address

Alexander Holler holler at ahsoftware.de
Sat Sep 24 17:38:47 UTC 2011


Am 24.09.2011 11:57, schrieb Kevin Smith:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Alexander Holler<holler at ahsoftware.de>  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 23.09.2011 23:19, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>>
>>> On 9/23/11 3:17 PM, EcliptuX wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 23/09/2011 23:05, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/21/11 12:01 PM, EcliptuX wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On my jabber server, I'm running a MUC on the address
>>>>>> conference.domain.tld
>>>>>> I want to be able to create an alias like muc.domain.tld, but the
>>>>>> XEP-0045 don't permit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is possible to add this specification in the next release ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The specification doesn't restrict the addresses -- I have seen
>>>>> conference.jabber.org, muc.xmpp.org, rooms.swift.im, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I think I was not clear :)
>>>>
>>>> I have an active room named salon at conference.onnouscachetout.com
>>>> I regret the choice of the term "conference"
>>>
>>> I regret the choice of "conference.jabber.org" many years ago, too, but
>>> it's the best that Peter Millard and I could come up with at the time.
>>>
>>>> and I want to change it to
>>>> a shorter one as "muc"
>>>> I want to have my room on salon at muc.onnouscachetout.com, but I want to
>>>> keep the old one working ! I don't want to disturb my guests !
>>>>
>>>> So, I really want an alias of @conference.onnouscachetout.com to
>>>> @muc.onnouscachetout.com
>>>>
>>>> And it's look like the XEP-0045 don't support this fonctionnality yet :)
>>>
>>> In general we don't have JID aliasing. However, this is probably
>>> something that your MUC implementation could do for you -- I don't think
>>> it's a spec issue but a deployment issue.
>>
>> How should a server handle that? What should be used as 'from' for messages
>> without confusing clients?
>>
>> If such should work servers and clients have to changed to be able to handle
>> JID-aliases. And that isn't something which is done with changing a few
>> lines and isn't (imho) worth the time needed.
>
> MUC aliasing is actually one of the very few cases in XMPP where
> aliasing could work without protocol extensions. The server would know
> which alias each client has joined and can route messages from that
> JID. I don't know any server implementation that does this, but if one
> did it wouldn't require client changes or deviation from XEP-0045.

I think confusion on the client side would start if a client connects to 
both aliases without knowing they are aliases. A server would have to 
forbid that with a meaningful message.

And handling room-aliases on the server side would have many pitfalls 
(e.g.the delay elements in the history). I'm not sure where else 
room-JIDs are used (besides in 'from'), that would require checking the 
whole XEP for appearances of room-JIDs (which currently isn't that easy) ;)

Regards,

Alexander




More information about the Standards mailing list