[Standards] XEP-0369 Proxy JIDs and MIX

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Tue Jan 10 12:11:25 UTC 2017


There has been quite a bit of discussion  on proxy JIDs on the list and
there has been some concern on complexity and some consideration of
alternatives.

Here is a summary of my thinking.

1.    The driving requirement for Proxy JIDs is support of JID hidden
channels.    There was a very strong message from the summit last year that
semi-anonymous was vital, particularly because of JID harvesting concerns
for public channels.     Review of this requirement is on  my list of
questions for the summit.      If JID Hidden Channels (equivalent to MUC
 semi-anonymous rooms) are not required, proxy JIDs are not needed.


2.   While burner JIDs may be helpful to provide a user with complete
anonymity in a channel,  I think that channel administration
needs access to the real JIDs.   It would not be acceptable to manage a
public MUC and just have a stack of anonymous participants.  So use of
client provided burner JIDs is not a viable approach to JID hidden channels.


3.   Use of MUC style "reference by Nick" (as noted in my message of 6th
Jan) is not viable.   Kev's response to this set out a several reasons for
this.    To me, a key issue is "stable identity".  Nicks can change, and it
is quite possible that different people will use different nicks.   This
means that when referencing history there will be no clear way for a channel
participant  to see which individual set what.      Addressing this issue
was one
of the original motivations for MIX. Although there are other
reasons, this single reason rules out the approach.


My conclusions from this is that we need to have Proxy JIDs in MIX, as I
don't anticipate a change of requirements in 1.



Steve






More information about the Standards mailing list