[Standards] [Council] 2016-07-20 Council Meeting

Holger Weiß holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Fri Aug 5 16:01:21 UTC 2016


* Holger Weiß <holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de> [2016-07-27 12:33]:
> * Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com> [2016-07-27 10:28]:
> > > ### XEP-0045: Define option name for enabling/disabling MAM
> > >
> > > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/204
> > >
> > > - Dave wonders if this could be an update to XEP-0313 instead of XEP-0045.
> > > - Tobias wonders if this needs to be its own option or if `enablelogging`
> > >   covers the same use cases
> > > - Discussion: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2016-07-20#15:22:05
> > > - All to vote on list.
> >
> > -1. After the followup discussion with Holger I agree that there might be
> > use in such an option. Although I'd rather we'd name it technology
> > independent and more concept focused, like roomconfig_enablearchiving. The
> > descriptive text could provide MAM as example of this. Furthermore there
> > should be a some small text describing the differences in this new option
> > and the roomconfig_enablelogging option.
>
> The advantage I see in referring to MAM specifically is that access to
> the archive is clearly defined in XEP-0313.  If a client enables MUC MAM
> in a private room, the standard should guarantee that this won't expose
> the archive to non-members.  If this assumption seems safe also for a
> generic "archiving" option, I'm fine with that.

I'd be interested in feedback on this.  Personally, I'd still prefer
referring to MAM, as I think the client should to be fully aware of the
implications of enabling that option, especially in private rooms.  If
we ever come up with another archiving XEP that supports XEP-0045,
chances are the archiving semantics and access rules will be different.
And it should be no problem for clients supporting future XEPs to use
new MUC configuration options if necessary.

However, if others prefer "roomconfig_enablearchiving", I'll update my
PR¹ accordingly.

> So what's the way forward?  Shall I provide an updated PR against
> XEP-0045, or against XEP-0313, or something else (e.g., others suggested
> putting all XEP-0045 configuration options into a separate registrar's
> list)?

While I understand how moving the configuration options into a separate
document might be nice, I'm probably not the right person to make this
happen, and I'd be grateful if this idea wouldn't block the addition of
an option to enable MUC MAM.  If people agree with such an option, can
we just put it into XEP-0045 until someone moves things around?

Holger

¹ https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/204


More information about the Standards mailing list