[Standards] A possible MIX approach: hiding multiple clients

Kevin Smith 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 mailing list