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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Sep 26 21:13:09 UTC 2011

On 9/24/11 1:53 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> On 9/20/11 6:00 PM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
>>> On 20.09.2011 08:46, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/11 4:40 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>>> No, but maybe adding some muc-features which are making it obvious what
>>>>> is supported by the server is an option. I don't know if there is an
>>>>> implemention which supports e.g. those voice-requests as described,
>>>>> those I've tested seem not to have it implemented.
>>>> If you test more implementations and find that none of them support the
>>>> feature (and the developers say they have no plans to implement the
>>>> feature), then it might make sense to remove the feature from the spec.
>>>> Peter
>>> We have a patch and we are going to include it in the new ejabberd
>>> version. Please don't remove the feature from the spec.
>> Cool, thanks for letting us know. I won't touch that part of the spec. :)
> I note that this feature has no disco feature defined. 

MUC does not have the plethora of disco features that PubSub has. You
decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

> Given that
> no-one seems to have deployed this yet, we need a way to discover
> support.

Do we want or need to define fine-grained disco features for XEP-0045?
And if so, why limit the new features to just this one?

> I propose the features http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#request and
> http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#register
> Also, it's worth considering moving this (nick register, registration
> approval, voice request) out of XEP-0045, and into an XEP of its own.
> As far as I see, MUC implementations have up until now treated this is
> an optional secondary part of the main MUC spec. The new XEP could
> also include text about service-level nick registrations, which is
> what it currently implemented and deployed, and can have interesting
> interactions with room-level registration.

I like the idea of slimming down XEP-0045 to the extent possible.

> I do intend to implement these in Prosody.

Thanks for letting us know.

> P.S. An important thing in this is the room requesting additional
> information. One obvious example is captcha support. How should that
> flow? The room should send a captcha form IQ-set or message to the
> requester?

Those are good questions. I don't have the answers, but it might be
easier to work out the answers if we put this feature into a separate spec.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Standards mailing list