[Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX): Early stages of a clients connection

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Thu May 18 15:14:09 UTC 2017


Jonas,

Thanks for the writeup.    I will look to address in the next update.     I may find issues expressing this, and will revert to the list if needed


Rgds


Steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Standards [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Jonas
> Wielicki
> Sent: 18 May 2017 16:10
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Subject: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX): Early stages of a clients connection
> 
> Dear Steve and others,
> 
> In the xsf@ MUC, we were discussion the interaction of MIX and roster, and
> the question what happens with roster versioning and MIX entries came up.
> 
> The key scenario which is unclear is the following: Assuming a server and
> client both support and use roster versioning, what happens when the client
> gains MIX capability in an update? The client connects to the server and posts
> its roster version X to the server. How does the server reply? Of course, the
> server can "overlay" the addition of MIX (from the point of view of the
> client) ontop of the changes accumulated since version X.
> 
> I think this should at least be discussed in the MIX XEP.
> 
> 
> A somewhat related point brought up by Dave was *how* does the server
> find out whether a client supports MIX when asked for the roster? The
> theory was that the server would know, because of XEP-0115 Entity
> Capabilities or similar mechanisms. However, at the point the roster is
> requested, the client may easily not have sent presence yet.
> 
> So the server might need to make a disco#info request while letting the client
> wait for the roster response. An extra round-trip, which is not even obvious
> to the client.
> 
> 
> Steve and others on the list, opinions?
> 
> kind regards,
> Jonas
> 
> P.S.: It also seems underspecified in the MIX XEP whether a client needs to
> send available presence to receive MIX messages and whether a client which
> sent available presence, but with negative priority, receives MIX messages.
> But I think Steve already took note of that in the xsf@ MUC. Only including it
> here for completeness.
> 
> P.P.S.: None of these issues were found by me (the first was found by Georg,
> the second and third by Dave); I am just re-laying those to the list since we
> don’t have logs currently and I think those are worth discussing.



More information about the Standards mailing list