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

Kim Alvefur zash at zash.se
Sat Sep 24 18:14:05 UTC 2011


I think it would be better to say "this room has moved". There is
mention of something like this in the section on destroying rooms[1],
but it's not mentioned how you should inform someone joining after the
room has been destroyed about the new location.

Current implementations (AFAIK) forget about the old room being
destroyed and let anyone create, and become owner of, a room named the
same as the old room. I can imagine this not being optimal sometimes,
possibly even a security issue.

How about some clarification, like saying you should send the
same /presence at type=unavailable/x/destroyed stanza as when the room is
destroyed. And maybe we should discourage implementations from letting
anyone recreate the room for a while?

[1]: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#destroyroom
-- 
Kim Alvefur <zash at zash.se>




More information about the Standards mailing list