[Standards] XEP-280 and MUC private chats

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Jul 16 21:23:45 UTC 2013


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 7/14/13 1:13 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Mathieu Pasquet <mathieui at mathieui.net> wrote:
>>>> I was starting to implement carbons in poezio when I came across some
>>>> kind of design issue that I haven’t been able to work out.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it (and in the use case explained in the introduction),
>>>> Carbons provide a way to minimize the nuisance of changing devices, by
>>>> providing all the messages with 'chat' type to all the carbon-enabled
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> The requirements also state that “All clients that turn on the new
>>>> protocol MUST be able to see all inbound chat-type messages”.
>>>>
>>>> However, in the case of private MUC messages (XEP-0045, 7.5), the
>>>> messages are also of type 'chat', causing them to be forwarded as normal
>>>> chat messages. But the other resources are not necessarily present on
>>>> that MUC, so they will receive the messages just fine, as with any
>>>> direct conversation with a fulljid, but they won’t be able to reply,
>>>> because I believe most MUC implementations will check the fulljid and
>>>> reply with an error.
>>>>
>>>> I can’t think of a straightforward solution to this issue, as the server
>>>> doesn’t know about MUC, neither does the other resource.
>>>>
>>>> On the sender part, it might be solved by including a <private/> with
>>>> each message sent through such chats, but on the receiving part, AFAIK
>>>> there is no way to distinguish those.
>>>>
>>>> I think the XEP should cover that case, because it is rather common to
>>>> have private conversations with people in a groupchat, and letting
>>>> clients guess how they should handle the message is very error-prone.
>>>
>>> Could you disco any unknown JIDs to see if they're users or MUCs?
>>>
>>> /K
>>
>> Yeah, that’s what I went with (I had forgotten about it at the moment of
>> writing that email).
>>
>> I think the XEP should indicate such a behavior, as a client developer
>> might forget about this case.
>
> Sounds like a positive addition. It would be good to advance this spec
> to Draft sometime. Do you have any other feedback?
>
>> Or even better, maybe the server could perform that disco, although I
>> get that making changes to already-deployed implementations might be
>> painful.
>
> How would it work for the server to perform service discovery on your
> behalf? (BTW, you don't need to send the disco request if you're using
> entity capabilities / XEP-0115.)

No?

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list