[Standards] Burner JIDs and MIX [WAS A possible MIX approach: hiding multiple clients]

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Fri Jan 6 16:56:36 UTC 2017

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> Yes - your "publish the users real JID to a JID mapping node" is I think the proxy JID model.   I think this is the best way to achieve  semi-anonymous type channels.

Right, it could if this is necessary but I don't think it actually is;
the MIX service can enforce these things, the admins don't need to
know the users JID.

> Use of burner JIDs gives an approach for fully anonymous.   I note that the summit last year agreed that there was no requirement for fully anonymous.

I think that when we first started on MIX in Washington this was
because it added a lot of complexity and no one was using it for MUC
anyways; but in this case it doesn't add any complexity over doing
semi-anonymous (in fact, semi-anonymous is ever so slightly more
complex in this case).


Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3

More information about the Standards mailing list