[Standards] Namespace delegation and privileged component

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Sat May 10 10:45:53 UTC 2014


I have had some comments on a MUC room from binary, but as he can't write here 
right now, so I'm copying his points here.

So he globaly like the XEP, but:

	- no need to wrap in a <privilege/> element, the IQ can be directly 
adressed to the client

	- permissions could also be used in admin mode, but without user 
interaction: a server may want to give only "get" "jabber:iq:roster" 
permission to a privileged component.

He also pointed me out the XEP-0068 to standardize the data forms.

For the <privilege/> element, I was thinking that that would avoid ambiguity 
if the component want to request directly the client, but indeed a full jid is 
needed in the case of an IQ to the client, so it's probably a good idea to 
remove the <privilege/> element...


Le vendredi 9 mai 2014, 20:52:42 Goffi a écrit :
> I forgot to mention: the permission mechanism is largely inspired from the
> one in remote-roster (XEP-0321).
> Le vendredi 9 mai 2014 20:50:16, vous avez écrit :
> > Hi, I have made a first draft for privileged components. It's my very
> > first
> > protoXEP, so pardon me if my english is bad or if I have done things
> > badly,
> > 
> > You can find the html version on
> > http://www.goffi.org/public/xmpp/xep/xep-proto-privileged-component.html,
> > and the XML on
> > http://repos.goffi.org/sat_docs/file/677de998f9d9/xmpp/xep-proto-privilege
> > d
> > -component.xml .
> > 
> > Feedbacks more than welcome.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Goffi

More information about the Standards mailing list