[Standards] Summit MIX Decsions

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Feb 8 15:47:57 UTC 2017


On 8 Feb 2017, at 15:16, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
>> 9.  It is agreed that MIX Channels will be represented in the roster.
>> 
>> 
>> 10.  It is  intended to mark MIX clients in the roster with a server
>> generated annotation, so that MIX clients can clearly show MIX channels
>> without needing to do discos.  These clients will be marked offline, so
>> should not be unduly obtrusive to non-MIX clients.
> 
> There was some discussion in the MUC recently about how roster
> requests are actually IQs and theoretically other entities besides the
> server could maintain a roster (which you could request from them by
> sending an IQ exactly like you would to the server for your main
> roster). I hadn't considered this when we were discussing it at the
> summit, but maybe it makes sense for the MIX service to maintain its
> own roster of MIX channels / proxy JIDs? The users client would
> request it from the MIX service and could show it separately or merge
> it as needed. Clients that don't support MIX obviously would not
> request this roster from the MIX server.
> 
> At first glance this feels cleaner to me than having the MIX service
> modify the users main roster, but I'm sure that I haven't thought it
> all the way through and there are consequences to this approach too?

Different use case, I’m afraid. Remote rosters don’t get to do broadcast presence.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list