[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.


More information about the Standards mailing list