[Standards] A possible MIX approach: hiding multiple clients
kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri Jan 6 10:01:51 UTC 2017
> On 6 Jan 2017, at 07:50, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> The recent discussion on the difficulty of proxy JIDs has triggered me to
> write up a more radical idea I have had floating around.
> For the most part, a MIX channel deals with users (not clients). Messages
> are sent out to each user. The MIX Proxy (possible new name "MIX
> Intermediate Server") distributes message and presence to clients.
> The place where multiple clients comes through is in presence, where each
> client shows presence.
> The radical change is to make MIX presence "per user" (at least for JID
> Hidden channels). This seems quite natural to the recipient. I really
> don't care how many clients a channel member is running and what their
> status is.
> If we make this change, we can simply get rid of proxy JID. The user is
> represented in the channel by the Nick.
> There are two downsides to this.
> The first is "Nick Stability". If a user changes their Nick, a
> participant in a JID Hidden channel cannot distinguish this from user
> leaving and a new one joining. I don't think this is a big deal
> operationally, but there might be scenarios where this is a problem.
> The second relates to the fact that channel members cannot see multiple
> clients for a user. This has upsides too, but may remove flexibility.
> The MIX Intermediate Server will need to set "unified presence". This is
> will sometimes be convenient for channel members, but could be confusing
> (consider status flapping between two clients). It feels awkward and messy
> for the MIX Intermediate Server to work out what to set.
> It prevents the channel participant from choosing clients (e.g., by looking
> at CAPS capability). However for a JID Hidden channel, it seems that in
> many ways trying to hide the JID and expose multiple clients is a bad thing.
> We could work this so that for JID Hidden channels, the MIX intermediate
> server MUST provide unified presence. For JID visible channels, you can
> simply share full JIDs.
> This is quite radical, but I think this idea has legs
This is the MUC model, which is one of the broken bits of MUC we need to get rid of!
More information about the Standards