[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Dec 14 16:16:08 UTC 2015

On 14 December 2015 at 16:04, Piotr Nosek <piotr.nosek at erlang-solutions.com>

> Hi Dave,
> a) It retains some level of compatibility, please see Implementation
> Notes. It is possible to use 0045 protocol for most of the functionality in
> transition period. "Substantial chunk of work" is not very precise. In our
> case the initial implementation that did not support 0045 compatibility
> took about 2-3 weeks. Please note it included refining the protocol in the
> meantime, so it was not pure implementation of existing, ready standard.
No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over this
protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written service. The result
is that existing '45 features are lost entirely.

An example is multiple owners, but there are plenty of others.

> b) It is a compilation of requirements of mobile chat providers. I can't
> see why being useful only for mobile clients is a reason to treat is as
> useless. It is a common belief amongst many developers that XMPP is not
> very attractive for mobile environments, why can't we make several
> extensions that are specifically mobile-friendly?
> Yes, there is no possibility of sending IQs but the thing is - what
> IQ-based functionality we would need in groupchats? File transfer? It's a
> common practice nowadays to upload files to external storage like Amazon S3
> and then just send a message with a link. (extra benefit: it can get
> archived by MAM).
Mobile-friendly is fine, mobile-only is not.

Many of the facilities you're dropping from '45 are in use in various
places - what I'd hate to see is a balkanization of XMPP between mobile
users and non-mobile users.

The point of XMPP is extensibility - by blocking off extensibility because
you don't think the existing cases are important enough, you're also
blocking off use-cases none of us have thought of.

> Regards,
> Piotr
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> This is quite a substantial protocol, but has, I think, two issues which
>> mean it is problematic to accept in my opinion:
>> a) It is not just presence-less MUC. It's an entirely new protocol which
>> is incompatible with existing XEP-0045. Even the room affiliation model is
>> different, allowing for example only one owner. This is problematic because
>> it's not reusing much (if anything) of the existing infrastructure. As such
>> it's going to be a substantial chunk of work for server developers to
>> implement, and difficult to offer a transitional approach into XEP-0045
>> based services.
>> b) It is only presence-less MUC. It's not offering anything beyond simple
>> fan-out of chat messages, and as a result there is no incentive for
>> non-mobile, or non-chat, clients to adopt it. As an example, there's no way
>> to send any IQ traffic through the system, due to a combination of no
>> visibility of either presence or full jids, meaning there's no possibility
>> of, for example, file transfer.
>> I appreciate there is a degree of not wanting to accept it because we're
>> expecting a MUC2 protoXEP to arrive, however I'm trying not to let that
>> influence my thinking here, since there's currently no XEP.
>> On 8 December 2015 at 17:39, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org>
>> wrote:
>>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>>> Title: Multi-User Chat Light
>>> Abstract: This specification provides a presence-less standard for
>>> Multi-User Chats. Its feature set is a response to mobile XMPP applications
>>> needs and specific environment.
>>> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-light.html
>>> The XMPP Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept
>>> this proposal as an official XEP.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
>> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20151214/16b923d4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list