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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Sep 26 19:50:30 UTC 2011


On 9/24/11 12:14 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> 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

I think the MUC service would return a <gone/> stanza error:

http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#stanzas-error-conditions-gone

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/





More information about the Standards mailing list