[Standards] MUC2 - The case for removing semi-anonymous

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Fri Jun 26 06:24:00 UTC 2015


> 
> I would like us to Get This Right, though. People have been mumbling about replacing MUC for years, and I’ve always been resistant;
> the discussions at the summit this year persuaded me that we finally have requirements that MUC1 can’t easily meet, but I really do
> not want us to do MUC2 now and MUC3 in 2017 to fix the stuff we got wrong in MUC2.

[Steve Kille] 
Kev -  I strongly agree with this goal.

It seems to me that the default semi-anonymous MUC1 is generally seen as "the way MUC works" and is not a conscious option selection choice.

I've not seen use where this behaviour seems particularly desirable.   I have seen significant customer concern about controlling mis-leading use of nicks and people misrepresenting themselves in MUCs.     I suspect that non-anonymous would be better behaviour for many MUC users, but there has not been active consideration to use it.

MUC2 will allow MUCs to allow users to read MUCs without sharing presence.   This seems a highly desirable option (lots of reasons).   This option will allow people to read MUCs anonymously, which I think for some MUCs can be a sensible and desirable privacy option.

I think that if you want to share your presence with the group or send a message to a group, that enforcing that you also share your jid is highly desirable.    In XMPP the jid is "who you are".   I can't see a clear use case for allowing people to post to a MUC without clearly identifying themselves.


Steve






More information about the Standards mailing list